Power Line Technology (PLT)

The request was partially successful.

Dear Office of Communications,

Ofcom are charged with the duty to regulate the Radio Spectrum and prosecute Spectrum abusers

Powerline Network Technology using Powerline Network Adaptors (PLA, PLT) are being used in the UK in a variety of applications, including BT Vision packages. The devices operate by injecting radio frequency energy into the domestic mains wiring for which such wiring was never intended. As a result, each PLA unit becomes a radio transmitter / receiver capable of transmitting data wirelessly as has been proved by experiments. The radiation of signals from PLA devices causes undue and severe interference to the radio spectrum from 2MHz to greater than 300MHz.

PLAs interfere with aeronautical emergency frequencies, land based emergency frequencies, FM Broadcast, Instrument Landing System frequencies and DAB radio. Interference on Short Wave frequencies disrupts international broadcasts and has the potential to cause interference to long distance aircraft and military communications This interference problem will escalate in the coming years approaching sunspot maximum, where the ionospheric layers will reflect these signals for many thousands of miles.

Ofcom has the powers under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 and the Communications Act 2003 to require that PLAs be licensed as Wireless Telegraphy apparatus because that is what they are. Ofcom refuse to act and refuse to issue licenses for PLA equipment when applications are made.

In the light of Ofcom’s failure to perform its statutory duties, I make this request under the Freedom of Information Act.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

Please supply full and complete details and documentation of the following (redacted as required by Data Protection Act. Where redaction is appropriate please state the reason in each and every case).

1. All details Ofcom have of complaints reported through the BBC, linked with PLT interference.
2. Full details of any information Ofcom has received or enquiries that have been made by it regarding the proposed use of the frequency range 2 MHz to 1000 MHz by PLT.
3. Full details of reports and evidence supplied to Ofcom by third parties, which indicate non-compliance of PLT with the Harmonized Standards or the essential requirements of the EMC Regulations (2006).
4. Details of actions taken by Ofcom regarding the PA Consulting PLT report-21 June 2010, with copies of all records relating to that report. Please include the date the report was originally received by Ofcom from PA Consulting and detail any corrections, amendments or omissions which were undertaken by Ofcom or its contractor, between the date the report was first received by Ofcom and the date the report was published to the general public.
5. Copies of all notes and minutes or other documentation relating to Ofcom’s meetings and discussions with spectrum Stakeholders which relate to PLT. This includes the Stakeholder meeting held on 3 August 2010 at Riverside House.
6. Details of all research on PLT interference or its effects, including the effects to VHF FM broadcast and DAB broadcasting, excluding the PA Consulting report.
7. Full details of reports and evidence supplied to Ofcom by third parties, which indicate non-compliance of PLT with the Harmonized Standards or the essential requirements of the EMC Regulations (2006).
8. Supply the following:-
a. Details of any enforcement action taken in respect of PLT stating the frequency of those actions and their outcome.
b. Details of all requests from other government agencies or any corporations who have approached Ofcom in any capacity or way relating to PLT, stating whether lobbying has taken place in each case.
c. Copies of all decisions, papers and records of meetings relating to Ofcom’s reasons for not acting on the PA Consulting report, 21 June 2010, with dates of such events.
d. Copies of all Ofcom’s and its advisers’ tests on the effects of PLAs on domestic, military or civil use of the common frequencies. If no tests or evidence has been conducted or gathered, state why testing was not deemed appropriate.
e. A copy of the report from Somerset Trading Standards relating to the Belkin Gigabit Powerline HD adapters (F5D4076) sent to Ofcom in May 2010 with all replies and follow up details and documentation or other responses.

Please note that where requests reference documentation, responses should include all e-mail exchanges and telephone conversation notes.

Yours faithfully,

John Petters

Information Requests, Office of Communications

Dear Mr Petters

Thank you for your request for information asking about power line network technology. Your request was received on 20th December 2010.

Generally any information provided will consist of copies of original documents in paper or electronic format.

Where we hold the information you have requested we will endeavour to answer your request in full and within 20 working days. If we are unable to provide the information requested, we will explain why the information has not been provided.

If you have any queries then please contact [Ofcom request email]. Please remember to quote the reference number 1-164193798 in any future communications.

Kind regards

Richard Neudegg
Information Requests

show quoted sections

Information Requests, Office of Communications

15 Attachments

Dear Mr Petters

In response to your information request, please see the attached correspondence.

Kind regards

Richard Neudegg
Information Requests

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Neudegg,
With reference to your reply to my question 8e:

"8e. A copy of the report from Somerset Trading Standards relating to the Belkin Gigabit Powerline HD adapters (F5D4076) sent to Ofcom in May 2010 with all replies and follow up details and documentation or other responses".
and your reply

"We are not aware of this report and therefore do not hold this information".

In the light of your statement above would like to reconsider your answer as a result of this e-mail from Somerset Trading Standards. For the avoidance of doubt this is the UK version of the F5D4076 with the suffix uk. (F5D4076uk)I have redacted the personal details.

"From: redacted
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 9:05 AM
To: redacted
Subject: RE: PLT

Dear redacted

Thanks for your email. Yes I can confirm that I sent a referral to Ofcom regarding the Belkin device; the referral was sent on the 7th May.

I refer to my email to you below of the 30th April, to which you duly replied on the 1st May where we discussed the content. You’ll also note I emailed you on the 7th May to confirm that the referral had been sent.

Kind Regards

redacted

redacted
Trading Standards Officer
Environment Directorate
Somerset Trading Standards
County Hall
Taunton
TA1 4DY".

Either Ofcom has not received this report, which I find unlikely or it has lost it, which would be surprising or it is deliberately trying to avoid disclosure.

I await your response.

Yours sincerely,

John Petters

Dear Mr Neudegg,
In my request for information I asked:

"Please supply full and complete details and documentation of the following (redacted as required by Data Protection Act. Where redaction is appropriate please state the reason in each and every case). 1. All details Ofcom have of complaints reported through the BBC, linked with PLT interference".
to which you replied:

"Please see our response to each of your questions in turn below. 1. All details Ofcom have of complaints reported through the BBC, linked with PLT interference.

We have received no complaints reported through the BBC linked with PLT.

Could you please explain your answer in the light of this e-mail from the BBC Radio Interference Service, which is part of the BBC:
"The Radio Investigation Service (RIS) is responsible for investigating
reports of interference to domestic television and radio reception, and
as part of that service we will offer advice and assistance to people
who are suffering reports of interference.

Where the interference comes from an illegal source, we may forward
cases to Ofcom for further investigation and possible enforcement
activities, but where the interference is from an Electro Magnetic
Compatibility (EMC) compliant device, we can only propose actions to
help the sufferer to improve their own installation, to make it more
resilient to external interference.

The RIS is aware of the reported effects of interference produced by
Power Line Telecommunications devices (PLT). The devices have been the
subject of concern and debate for a considerable time and Ofcom, the
independent regulator and competition authority for the UK
communications industries has been liaising with all of the various
stakeholders in this debate and will continue to do so for the
foreseeable future.

As a result of their investigations Ofcom have published some useful
information concerning these devices, which can be viewed on their
website, at the following address:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforce...
<http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforce...>

The latest Ofcom statement on this matter can also be found at the
following web address:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforce...>

We have checked with Ofcom concerning the reference number that you
gave to us and they have confirmed that the case is indeed still open
and they have Field Engineers investigating. If you would like to
speak to Ofcom about this case please contact their advisory team on
0300 123 3333.

Regards

Radio Investigation Service

Please reconsider your your answer or explain why you are not providing this information.

Yours sincerely,

John Petters

Information Requests, Office of Communications

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Petters

Thank you for your email requesting clarification on our response to two questions in your recent information request.

Analysis of our records indicates that since the BBC took over broadcast reception interference from Ofcom in June/July 2010 they have only requested that we investigate two cases. Both relate to interference to television reception and do not involve PLT apparatus.

We interpreted question one of your request as asking for details of any new complaints that were reported to the BBC that were in turn passed to us. In the case of PLT devices, no new complaints were logged as a result of correspondence from the BBC.

We interpreted question eight (e) of your request as asking for any reports submitted to us, having been commissioned or authored by or behalf of Somerset Trading Standards of which we have none.

However using the information on the email that you referenced, we have located an email received from Somerset Trading Standards on 7 May 2010 to which a report was attached authored by a member of the public. Please see attached the email that was sent to us, along with the associated report.

Please note that some names have been redacted based on section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which relates to personal information and which provides that such information is exempt for the purposes of the Act.

The referral from Somerset Trading Standards related to a product that was first 'placed on the market', for the purposes of the EMC Regulations, outside the UK i.e. The Netherlands and so not within the jurisdiction of UK authorities.

Please ensure that when using the provided information in any way, you comply with all relevant legislation. For example, the information provided may be protected by copyright under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended). If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice. For Ofcom’s policy on copyright and related issues, please refer to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/disclaimer/.

Kind regards

Richard Neudegg
Information Requests

If you are unhappy with the response or level of service you have received in relation to your request from Ofcom, you may ask for an internal review. If you ask us for an internal review of our decision, it will be treated as a formal complaint and will be subject to an independent review within Ofcom. We will acknowledge the complaint and inform you of the date by which you might expect to be told the outcome.
The following outcomes are possible:
• the original decision is upheld; or
• the original decision is reversed or modified.

Timing
If you wish to exercise your right to an internal review you should contact us within two months of the date of this letter. There is no statutory deadline for undertaking internal reviews and it will depend upon the complexity of the case. However, we aim to conclude all such reviews within 20 working days, and up to 40 working days in exception cases. We will keep you informed of the progress of any such review. If you wish to request an internal review, you should contact:

Graham Howell
The Secretary to the Corporation
Ofcom
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Neudegg
Thank you for your reply today, which only partially answers my request.

1 BBC - my question wasn't time specific.
"1. All details Ofcom have of complaints reported through the BBC, linked with PLT interference".
Please therefore supply ALL details as requested.

2 Thank you for the two documents relating to my request about Somerset Trading Standards. There are others.
The e-mail you supplied from Somerset refers to:
"As I’ve said in my document, I’m aware from the OFCOM".
Please supply the document to which this refers.

Please also supply Ofcom's response and any other documents relating to this.

Please confirm that Mr Corrie dealt with this matter or if I am in error,please say so.

Yours sincerely,

John Petters

Dear Information Requests,
Thank you for your response of 10th January.
You stated,
"The referral from Somerset Trading Standards related to a product that was first 'placed on the market', for the purposes of the EMC Regulations, outside the UK i.e. The Netherlands and so not within the jurisdiction of UK authorities".
It is my belief this statement is incorrect and that this is within the jurisdiction of UK authorities. Please provide details and the authority (documents, legislation, links to web site if easier) upon which Ofcom relies for this statement.

Yours sincerely,

John Petters

Information Requests, Office of Communications

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Petters

Thank you for your further emails requesting clarification on our response to your recent information request.

Several Ofcom colleagues have been involved in answering your information request including Mr Corrie.

As we said in our response to your information request, we have received no complaints reported through the BBC that were confirmed as being linked with PLT. This in based on the information that we hold. Our response to you yesterday was providing you with further background information.

With regard to your second question, there was an additional attachment to the Somerset County Council email. This was not attached to my previous email as it was not part of the request, however, for completeness; please find it attached to this email.

Please note that some names have been redacted based on section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which relates to personal information and which provides that such information is exempt for the purposes of the Act.

We hold no further information in relation to that email. It is likely we responded to it by telephone.

With regard to your third question on jurisdiction, you should refer to EU Directive 2004/108/EC, available here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU...

You should also refer to Statutory Instrument 2006 Number 3418, available here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/...

You may also find it useful to read 'Guide to the implementation of directives based on the New Approach and the Global Approach' produced by the European Commission. It is available here:

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/...

Please ensure that when using the provided information in any way, you comply with all relevant legislation. For example, the information provided may be protected by copyright under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended). If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice. For Ofcom’s policy on copyright and related issues, please refer to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/disclaimer/.

We have responded to various information requests from you regarding PLT and we will of course continue to comply with our duties under the Freedom of Information Act. However your underlying concern, which you have previously expressed to us, appears to be our policy on PLT devices. You may find it useful to establish contact with the Radio Society of Great Britain (RSGB) who looks after the interests of the UK's 55,000 licensed radio amateurs. They are actively petitioning on this particular issue I understand have been in contact with the UK Government Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), the BBC and the EU Commission.

Kind regards

Richard Neudegg
Information Requests

If you are unhappy with the response or level of service you have received in relation to your request from Ofcom, you may ask for an internal review. If you ask us for an internal review of our decision, it will be treated as a formal complaint and will be subject to an independent review within Ofcom. We will acknowledge the complaint and inform you of the date by which you might expect to be told the outcome.
The following outcomes are possible:
• the original decision is upheld; or
• the original decision is reversed or modified.

Timing
If you wish to exercise your right to an internal review you should contact us within two months of the date of this letter. There is no statutory deadline for undertaking internal reviews and it will depend upon the complexity of the case. However, we aim to conclude all such reviews within 20 working days, and up to 40 working days in exception cases. We will keep you informed of the progress of any such review. If you wish to request an internal review, you should contact:

Graham Howell
The Secretary to the Corporation
Ofcom
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

show quoted sections

Dear Office of Communications,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Office of Communications's handling of my FOI request 'Power Line Technology (PLT)'.

1. All details Ofcom have of complaints reported through the BBC, linked with PLT interference.
We have received no complaints reported through the BBC linked with PLT.

This is an untrue statement.

2. Full details of any information Ofcom has received or enquiries that have been made by it regarding the proposed use of the frequency range 2 MHz to 1000 MHz by PLT.
We do not hold any information in relation to this.
This is an untrue statement. Ofcom is well aware of PLT using this part of the spectrum so will hold documents when this was in its proposal stage.

3. Full details of reports and evidence supplied to Ofcom by third parties, which indicate non-compliance of PLT with the Harmonized Standards or the essential requirements of the EMC Regulations (2006).
Occasionally we are contacted by third parties, particularly amateur radio users, referring us to information on PLT which is already in the public domain and which was not produced or commissioned by Ofcom.
However, other than for our criminal investigations into EMC compliance, we have not received nor commissioned any formal reports in connection with PLT other than the PA Consulting report. We understand your question to refer to reports commissioned by Ofcom in this way. We wish to be clear that there are none other than the PA Consulting report.
3 of 11
However, if your question was wider than this and you do wish us to consider all correspondence we have received from amateur radio users, please get in touch again and we will review the request from that perspective. To the extent that your question relates to information and reports in connection with Ofcom’s criminal enforcement functions under the EMC regime, the public information that we hold on this can be found at:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforce... This explains the outcome of our investigation. You will note that, on the evidence, Ofcom has not so far found there is a breach of the EMC essential requirements. You may also find the following response to an EU PMQ in September on PLT issues of interest:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getA... And the Government’s response to an E-petition about testing PLT equipment:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page21654
We are unable to provide you with any further information. Whilst Ofcom does hold information in relation to our investigations, we consider that the exemption under section 30 of the Act, which relates to investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities In applying this exemption we have had to balance the public interest in withholding the information against the public interest in disclosing the information. The attached Annex A to this letter sets out the exemption in full, as well as the factors that Ofcom considered when deciding where the public interest lay.
In addition to section 30, the information could also be withheld under section 36 of the Act. This relates to information that would or would likely prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs, which includes inhibiting the free and frank exchange of views. In applying this exemption we have had to balance the public interest in withholding the information against the public interest in disclosing the information as set out in Annex B. In the letter in Annex C, Graham Howell as a “qualified person” confirms that in his reasonable opinion it is not in the public interest for Ofcom to disclose the information you requested.
Furthermore, the information could also be withheld under section 42(1) of the Act. This part of the Act deals with the exemption of information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings. In applying this exemption we have had to balance the public interest in withholding the information against the public interest in disclosing the information. The attached Annex D to this letter sets out the exemption in full, as well as the factors Ofcom considered when deciding where the public interest lay.

I do not accept the answer you gave please provide all documents requested, redacted as necessary. If you are going to refuse any document please list the name and source of such document and your precise reason for witholding them.

5. Copies of all notes and minutes or other documentation relating to Ofcom’s meetings and discussions with spectrum Stakeholders which relate to PLT. This includes the Stakeholder meeting held on 3 August 2010 at Riverside House. In relation to the Stakeholder meeting held on 3 August 2010 which you refer to, please see attachments 11-13 which contains all notes and minutes that we hold for that meeting. Please note that some names have been redacted based on section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which relates to personal information and which provides that such information is exempt for the purposes of the Act.
5 of 11
We have had meetings with the BBC, BIS, RSGB and UKQRM relating to PLT. We have also attended meetings where the MOD, CAA, Police Authority and DCLG have been present. While we do not hold minutes for these meetings, it is possible there is some email correspondence or associated documents relating to these meetings. However, the information is not readily accessible and a considerable amount of time would be needed to locate, retrieve, identify and extract any relevant information.
Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides that a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the “appropriate limit”. The appropriate limit is set out in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004, and is, for Ofcom, £450. That sum is intended to cover the estimated costs involved in determining whether Ofcom holds the information requested, identifying, locating, retrieving and extracting the information from any document containing it. The Regulations provide that costs are to be estimated at a rate of £25 per person per hour.
We estimate that it would take at least 18 hours to identify, locate and extract the information you require and as such the cost of complying with your request will exceed the appropriate limit. If the data exists it is not readily to hand and it would therefore be necessary to search electronic and papers records made or kept over a considerable period of time by a number Ofcom colleagues. We will therefore not be able to provide any further information in connection to this question.
However, if you wish to submit an alternative request with a narrower, more specific scope in relation to one of the organisations which we have listed above, we would be happy to give it our full consideration.

I do not accept your statement regarding costs. You have a duty to organise your records so that they are efficiently stored and accessible. The Lord Chancellor's Code Of Practice requires this.

7. Full details of reports and evidence supplied to Ofcom by third parties, which indicate non-compliance of PLT with the Harmonized Standards or the essential requirements of the EMC Regulations (2006). Please refer to our response to question 3.
I do not accept this inadequate answer to a reasonable request. Please refer to my rejection of the response you gave to question 3.

8b. Details of all requests from other government agencies or any corporations who have approached Ofcom in any capacity or way relating to PLT, stating whether lobbying has taken place in each case. Please refer to our response to question 5.

I do not accept this inadequate answer to a reasonable request. Please refer to my rejection of the response you gave to question 3.

8e. A copy of the report from Somerset Trading Standards relating to the Belkin Gigabit Powerline HD adapters (F5D4076) sent to Ofcom in May 2010 with all replies and follow up details and documentation or other responses.
We are not aware of this report and therefore do not hold this information.
This is untrue and very serious indeed. I require an explanation why this information was withheld and only disgorged when I provided Ofcom with evidence it already existed. Is your record keeping so shambolic that your information officer couldn't find it or is Ofcom deliberately trying to suppress it because its existence contradicted a written statement made by Ofcom.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/po...

Yours faithfully,

John Petters

Information Requests, Office of Communications

Internal Review 1-165743261

Dear Mr Petters

Thank you for your email which Ofcom received on 20 January 2011, asking
for a review of our decision in relation to your request for information.

The review will be conducted under the supervision of the Secretary to the
Corporation. While there is no statutory deadline for completing internal
reviews, we aim to respond within 20 working days. Please contact me at
[1][Ofcom request email] if you have any queries, remembering
to quote the reference number 1-165743261.

Yours sincerely

Katy Emadi

Information Associate

show quoted sections

Graham Howell, Office of Communications

Dear Mr. Petters,

You have requested an internal review of Ofcom's handling of your 'Power
Line Technology' (PLT) request. I am responding to your points as
high-lighted below.

Yours sincerely,

Graham Howell

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

If you have any queries or would like to discuss this informally then
please contact Information Requests (email:
[1][Ofcom request email]).

show quoted sections

Martin Clintergate left an annotation ()

Cases of interference attributed to PLT are routed through our Case Allocation (`CAT') Team. The CAT Team has stated that it is not aware of any reports of interference from the BBC concerning PLT.

Michael Trodd left an annotation ()

There are some crazy replies by Ofcom here!

"We have received no complaints reported through the BBC linked with PLT"

I wonder why? I have submitted reports to the BBC and they refuse to accept PLT cases and instead tell you to go back to Ofcom!!!

"I am not aware of any information being received or enquiries made about a proposal to use the frequency range 2MHz to 1000MHz by PLT and I
have made thorough enquiries with our clearance team"

Really? there have been plenty of communications about the Belkin Giggle bit PLT that uses 2-300+ Mhz, I have emails from Ofcom about it, and if they had no idea about this why is it in the PA report?

These responses make me think that there is a bad communications problem at Ofcom, all the more ironic for the 'Office of communications'

Martin Clintergate left an annotation ()

Why try to claim problems where none exist? 'Since the BBC took over broadcast reception interference from Ofcom in June/July 2010 they have only requested that we investigate two cases. Both relate to interference to television reception and do not involve PLT apparatus.'

Ganesh Sittampalam left an annotation ()

Note that the internal review response has been interleaved with the quoted sections of the original email and can thus only be found by clicking on the "Show quoted sections" link in the message.

It's a limitaton of WhatDoTheyKnow that it doesn't currently render such messages in a readable format; hopefully we can address this in future.

Thanks to the user who brought this to our attention in this particular case.

Ganesh - WhatDoTheyKnow.com volunteer.

Michael Trodd left an annotation ()

@ M Clintergate, how does your annotation help me or Mr Petters with the problem?
And why do you say 'We have investigated' are you saying you are from Ofcom then?

Martin Clintergate left an annotation ()

I am trying to help Mr Petters. I think he does not understand that the BBC have not had any complaints involving PLT technology..
OFCOM have only had complaints from amateur radio listeners who have their problems resolved on a case by case basis.Mr Petters does not appear to have a very good grasp of technology regarding these units.

Michael Trodd left an annotation ()

Martin, that is exactly the problem! The BBC have had compliant but refuse to accept them and refer you back to Ofcom who refer you back to the BBC.
If you care to email me I can provide proof

John Petters left an annotation ()

Martin stated,
"OFCOM have only had complaints from amateur radio listeners who have their problems resolved on a case by case basis.Mr Petters does not appear to have a very good grasp of technology regarding these units."
I am afraid you are in error.
I know of several radio amateurs who have not had the PLT equipment removed.
As to my grasp of the technology, I would suggest you look at my YouTube channel,where you will find proof that PLT is Wireless Telegraphy as defined in WTA 2006 S116/117 and that I have proved PLT interferes with the spectrum including FM broadcast, DAB and aircraft frequencies.

Ofcom's own report confirmed that the mains wiring was not a proper medium for injecting radio frequencies. Ofcom is obliged to protect the radio spectrum.

P Stevens left an annotation ()

Ofcom claim there's no problem really, since complaints are resolved on a 'case-by-case basis', yet each time I've had to register a complaint of severe interference from powerline networking adapters (PLT), the visiting Ofcom engineer has remarked that he can't promise anything because "the owner might refuse to stop using them".

This is not resolving matters on a case-by-case basis. This is just "seeing what they can do". We need the regulator to regulate, and protect the radio spectrum from interference as is their remit. It's one of the jobs we, the taxpayers, pay them to do.

If Ofcom have no powers, as they claim, somewhat questionably, should they not be lobbying for the powers needed? A very substantial amount of radio users from all groups of radio spectrum stakeholders are ready, willing and able to back up their attempts.

If they do not act now, the situation is going to go, quite literally, from bad to downright terrible.

P Stevens left an annotation ()

Oh, by the way: for the information of Martin above, I've sent two complaints to the BBC about interference to their DRM transmissions from powerline adapters since it was announced they would be handling complaints to broadcasting. Like Mr Trodd above, I can provide evidence of this if need be, and again like Mr Trodd, I have been bounced back to Ofcom.

Surely not a lack of comprehensive record keeping at Ofcom towers?

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org