Comments - dslreports.com

Author	All Replies
NeO_JAW Arsenal Are No1 Premium join:2002-01-24 Surrey, UK clubs:	About time too At last some good news about BPL.. -- Time for a LiQuId LuNcH
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 09:36:23 ·
exocet_cm In memory of dadkins Premium join:2003-03-23 New Orleans, LA clubs:	This is what we need. I'm glad they figured out a way to keep interference to a minimum. Now maybe BPL won't get cought up in red tape.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 09:38:01 ·
N0JCG join:2003-07-18 Minneapolis, MN	Yes! Finally, a BPL company that appears to actually have real engineers, not just marketing spin doctors! Corridor was obviously working on it before I posted a similar idea in August (»home.comcast.net/~gbox/), so I wish them good luck and may the best system win. (Yeah, I know, fiber is best)
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 09:49:19 ·
Archivis Your Daddy Premium join:2001-11-26 Earth	Any speed difference on 5ghz? Is there any speed differences operating on these frequencies?
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 09:50:22 ·
The Folsom Kindly Shut Your Noise Hole. Premium join:2003-01-31 Yucaipa, CA ·Verizon FIOS	802.11a Looks like 802.11a will be taken out by this technology. As a ham, I was vocal in my criticism of old BPL. I would not be surprised if people who spent so much on (a) equipment are now pissed off and the manufacturers of (a) equipment are messing their collective drawers about the (maybe) future obsolescence of (a). I could also understand their apprehension and disappointment. If I had to give up a band that I love operating, I would my self be kinda mad. -- The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. »www.prepaidlegal.com/info/kfolsom [text was edited by author 2003-10-17 10:26:02]
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 10:08:00 ·
CanOpener4 join:2003-06-23 Brooklyn, NY	And 802.11a's spectrum is dumped on... said by [TelecomWeb : The thornier problem is that there isn't a lot of junk spectrum out there just waiting to absorb BPL emissions. While Corridor's solution would spare the hams, there are also technologies using or planning to use those 5 GHz bands -- 802.11a for example. While Corridor's technology shows that we at least have some degree of control over where we dump BPL's RF trash, it has to go somewhere. And pretty much anywhere you look, you'll find existing users demanding that it not be dumped in their back yard. This part was interesting... Hopefully, there won't be court battles between BPL and 802.11a claiming to have the right to use these freqs. After being against the BPL of previous versions, I am looking favorably on the current system being tested. I hope this works! But, I am wondering what the end user's throughput will end up being? [text was edited by author 2003-10-17 10:16:15]
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 10:10:06 ·
Automate join:2001-06-26 Atlanta, GA ·Comcast	Big typo "A blistering 216 Mbps, with latency of less than 500 milliseconds" 500 milliseconds is .5 seconds, about the same as a satellite link, very bad. According to Corridor Systems it should be 500 microseconds, very good latency. »www.corridor.biz/0309-corridor-pr.pdf
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 10:10:30 ·
oliphant5 Got Identity? Premium join:2003-05-24 Corona, CA	Yep, and California sure knows power Of all the problems California power has, how about PG&E, SDG&E, SCE start repairing and expanding their infrastructure before wasting more money (and crying the the CPUC for rate increases) on questionable technology with no standards and that offers nothing that cable, WISP and xDSL don't already offer. There are easier, cheaper ways to deploy WISP than involving California power distributors, especially since more and more of California residences use underground utilities services that stretch FAR outside the servicable area of Wi-Fi (esp in SoCal where UG utilities have been installed in tract developments nearly exclusively since the late 60's). If these distributors have the money to waste on this (all while crying poverty to the CPUC), then they have too much and the PUC should order some returned to their customers. -- -- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports [text was edited by author 2003-10-17 10:39:51]
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 10:33:58 ·
UnKown The Underground Network join:2002-09-08 Orlando, FL	reply to Automate Re: Big typo very true, but to Large businesses that dont play games the extra latencity is no problem compared to the speed.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 11:53:31 ·
DrTCP Yours truly Premium,ExMod 1999-04 join:1999-11-09 Round Rock, TX	Solve one problem to introduce another quote: The service does use Wi-Fi to get the bandwidth from medium voltage power grids to the end user's computer, so real-world speeds may be potentially less. And as a result there will be much higher interference and less usable band in the 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz bands. Solve one problem only to introduce another one. As more households get Wi-Fi APs the problem will get more severe. They should get their own dedicated service frequency and not use Wi-Fi bands. [text was edited by author 2003-10-17 11:56:09]
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 11:53:50 ·
statecop Premium join:2002-09-16 Beverly Hills, CA	Who is next???????????? Somebody will start screaming it causing problems with something and start another campaign against it. I hope they can get this rolled out though for the good of everyone!
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 11:58:03 ·
WangFubar join:2003-10-02 Paradise, CA	reply to oliphant5 Re: Yep, and California sure knows power I eagerly welcome any broadband here, but I agree that PG&E claimed that they were bankrupt and strong armed the rate payers into enormous rate increases. If they have capital to startup a new division and deploy broadband, I think its time for CPUC to re evaluate the rates we are paying.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 12:08:18 ·
Automate join:2001-06-26 Atlanta, GA	reply to UnKown Re: Big typo I don't think so. Try VOIP or Video conferencing over a high latency link. Not fun.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 12:25:36 ·
apsinkus join:2002-06-25 Chicago, IL	If it has "wirless" in it's name HAMs will kill it After dealing with HAMs on this forum and other places I came to one conclusion: You guys feel like you own the universe. The moment any signal leaves four walls, you will cry foul. I think that HAMs are the reason wireless product development is restricted and you are the reason why small towns and other rural areas (plus underdeveloped parts of huge cities) have no broadband. You just want everything for your !hobby!. If I was like that with my hobbies, none of you would be driving your old beat up cars, since you would be interfering with my hobby on any roadway. Now get the hell out of my lane damn it!
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 12:34:42 ·
JakCrow join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA	reply to The Folsom Re: 802.11a Given the range of 11a, it's possible interference issues will be minor.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 12:38:59 ·
Subaru 1-3-2-4 Premium join:2001-05-31 Greenwich, CT clubs: ·Packet8	I think Hams arw cool To be able to talk with the ISS and other people from around the world with nothing more then a radio.. But all I can say about this boradband power line thing is.. Fix your Lines and Grids first! We all know what happend not long ago.. A Few major citys had no power due to a switching problem and a overload of a grid. -- Puerto Rico's Official travel site Visit my Picture gallery
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 13:31:30 ·
N0JCG join:2003-07-18 Minneapolis, MN	reply to apsinkus Re: If it has "wirless" in it's name HAMs will kill it Hams are upset with the original BPL concept because it is bad engineering and irresponsible public policy. There are RF bands set aside for just these purposes, which do not infringe on other services like shortwave broadcasting, amateur radio or public service. That is where they belong. The 5GHZ band that Corridor is using is allocated to the National Information Infrastructure for just this purpose. Amateur radio has coexisted with everything from AM broadcasters to television to WISP's by cooperating and coordination. BPL on HF frequencies flies in the face of almost 90 years of cooperation. There is no argument if it behaves like a good neighbor and uses the spectrum allocated to it.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 14:11:06 ·
CheeseWare Premium join:2003-04-24 Burnaby, BC	Dead horse 2 (case #22) The good news is that there is finally recognition from the BPL community that this technology is leaking in-band (and perhaps even out of band on most powerlines!). Perhaps there is a solution in the co-licensing space that can recover the ailing stocks out of this latest "BPL demo". The bad news is that some people may think that the horse is not really dead yet. According to rf_engineer earlier posting on various pro-BPL logic, this would be a case #22 (rigormortis) or #23 (Treckie technology). I am not trolling and please bare with me for a moment before firing back. Let's each take out our favorite Xcel spreadsheet and create a worksheet called "rural deployment ROI analysis" and enter three columns: - one for dropping new DSL repeater commodity gear at each 15000 feet of line - one for dropping a cell site/antenna commodity gear (while powering off the powerline) at every say 30000 feet. - one for dropping BPL line repeaters (ensure to include CAPEX and OPEX) at every TBD feet (how many feet were the repeaters dropped at in latest BPL demo?) Add it all up, also put a column in on when will the stuff be available at a commodity price (&risk associated), and send it over to the FCC commissioner; make sure it is the one on the torture stretcher that saw the first BPL demo. And then you can beat me on my posting and tell me that the horse is not really dead but perhaps can kick again if we are all kind enough to give it a chance. When a horse suffers, everyone one is better off if the horse is put down. Deploying broadband to rural is *not* a technology problem (even if they ever got BPL to work!), it is simply a spreadsheet problem. It is that simple. This forum is far too technical to solve it.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 14:59:14 ·
calvoiper join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA	reply to Automate Re: Bigger typo Aw, 'cmon. What's the difference if you're off by a factor of 1,000? (Best recent gaffe: the FCC, in its recent screed on telephone unbundling, mis-defined "DS-1" as a 1.544 MegaBYTE signal instead of 1.544 MegaBIT signal--and repeated the error for DS-3. When they issued a controversial "Errata" changing several other things in the Order, they missed these two....) Calvoiper -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 17:47:14 ·
keyboard5684 join:2001-08-01 Youngsville, PA ·Teliax VOIP ·WestPAnet Inc. ·WestPAnet Inc. CA..	reply to JakCrow Re: 802.11a Other things use 5ghz like higher-range wireless links. (Point to multipoint systems like Motorola Canopy or Proxim Tsunami Multipoint). It will certainly be a problem when a power company decides to offer BPL in an area where others are using the non-licensed bands. I think non-licensed bands should be reserved for the smaller guys that cannot affor to pay tons for a licensed frequency. A power company can afford to license something else and use that eliminating all interference concerns.
	to forum · permalink · · 2003-10-17 18:29:05 ·


Monday, 30-Nov 06:04:48	Terms of Use \| Privacy Policy \| Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo \| feedback \| contact over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com. page compression OFF