Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to TACSPEED
Re: You've got to be kidding me
said by TACSPEED  :
All this does is raise the base noise level all across the spectrum. If you want a example listen to a shortwave broadcast in a city, then drive to the country and listen
again the difference in the over all noise is really surprising. So if you are on an FRS radio, or a cell phone this increase in the base noise level might mean the difference between being heard and not. This is really true for digital cell phones where you are either all there or not at all. It would be a hell of a note to not be able to get help in an emergency because a local LAN party was honking away on flaming Dragons of the outer wa-zoo over the area BPL system.
--
I love Irish Terriers, Low Brass, and the sound of a 1950 Johnson Viking 1 tranmitter on the air for the first time in 30 years. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to Healbot
Re: NOT everyone has cable/DSL
said by Healbot :
I think this would be good for us the people in the sticks(like me). I would kill for a ping in the 500s and lower with my 1700 ping satellite. Just because you have DSL/cable doesn't the rest of us have it.
From what I have read, you will still be out in the sticks with your satellite. Transmitting RF over power lines is a lossy business, and the variations I have read about have repeaters to boost the signal. That is expensive. It will be just like DSL and fiber, those in densely populated areas will get it, those not will not.
Of course I have not looked at the latest variations and promises, so I could be out of date.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| reply to Healbot
said by Healbot :
I think this would be good for us the people in the sticks(like me). I would kill for a ping in the 500s and lower with my 1700 ping satellite. Just because you have DSL/cable doesn't the rest of us have it.
I understand. I Wyoming we have a similar problem. I am so lucky to have a DSL contention. My Brother lives out in the county and his connection is so bad that he doesn't even have a computer at home. BPL is just not the answer.
--
I love Irish Terriers, Low Brass, and the sound of a 1950 Johnson Viking 1 tranmitter on the air for the first time in 30 years. |
|
trisomy
Premium
join:2002-05-23
Houston, TX
| reply to RayW
Re: Aren't We Splitting Hairs
Gentlemen, I have recieved a number of very good comments and emails relative to my posting and I appreciate the education and your respective knowledege. I am however suggesting that IMHO the IP network is both robust and critical enough that it be accessible to all end users as a priority.
In all due respect, we will likely compel no one company to 'build out' state of the art networks in non-profitable areas. Likewise the distribution and specialization of Ham Radio Operators is neither a guarantee nor a solution to 'emergency communications'. Moreso, it is my suspicion that redundant and ubiquitous IP access will produce incentive for technology (including low-powered) simply operated (or more simply operated than Ham Radio's), that technology investment in the IP arena is a more likely scenario than in the non-IP arena and that multi-tasking the existent infrastructure is more cost-effective for last mile.
Please do not construe my posting as ignoring the many educated and well stated postings and communication I have recieved. I simply would suggest that robust IP access is a priority that should be implemented as rapidy and cost-effectively as is practical. It appears that BPL is one of the few access options that reach a majority of citizens. |
|
David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| reply to aSic
Re: I hear they are offering BB over powerlines here..
Crieff - BBC report
»www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp067.html
Abstract
A brief site visit to Crieff is reported; it took place, at the invitation of Scottish and Southern Electricity, to examine some Power Line Telecommunications (PLT) installations (used to connect domestic and commercial premises to the internet). Two competing systems are described, examples of which were seen, and the scope for interference to HF broadcasting assessed. The circumstances of the trial limited the scale of scientific experimentation, nevertheless some clear conclusions are drawn. Both systems caused interference to HF reception, although one system appeared to have made some attempts to limit this. Some suggestions are made how co-existence between PLT and home radio reception might be investigated; such investigation would be essential before any wide-scale implementation of PLT. Audio recordings demonstrating the interference are available. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to trisomy
Re: Aren't We Splitting Hairs
With all due respect, even the most robust IP access is nothing without some type of main power. Plus, it would require a computer (either battery or main power operated) and some sort of connection be it wired or wireless. The human voice can be easily translated by a human but IP comunications would still require an extra piece of mechanical hardware (one more piece to require power and to fail.)
We can't even get high speed access to everyone, much less a robust IP infrastructure. |
|
David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| WiMax is the rural solution
Backed by Intel - Houston County system
»www.macon.com/mld/macon/7378346.htm
Nov. 30, 2003
Houston could be first wireless county in U.S.
Internet would be available anywhere in the county without plugging in
By Charlie Lanter
Telegraph Staff Writer
WARNER ROBINS - Computer hardware manufacturer Intel Corporation is talking to local officials about bringing a new wireless Internet technology to Houston County next year.
If the deal pans out, subscribers to the new service could surf the Web from anywhere in the county without plugging their computer into any phone jacks, cable jacks or other immobile connections.
Terry Smithson, education marketing manager for Intel, said the new technology, called 802.16 or WiMax, could make Houston the first completely wireless county in the United States. It also could later be expanded to provide wireless Internet access throughout Georgia.
"I would like to highlight Georgia nationally as a state that other states should look to to move into a wireless model," Smithson said.
But many details must be worked out before the service is implemented.
For example, who will pick up the estimated $2 million price tag for building communications towers and other start-up costs?
Warner Robins City Councilman Matt Stone, who has sat in on meetings with Intel and other local officials, said it's too early to tell who would pick up the tab and who would actually provide the Internet service.
Intel is only interested in helping the county get started by providing experts to study the issue and possibly selling the necessary start-up equipment. The company would not provide internet service. That would probably be left up to a telecommunications company such as Cox or BellSouth.
"Our hope has really been to have a community effort with a cooperative public-private partnership," Stone said.
The next step will be for Stone and other local officials involved in the discussion to approach the Houston County Commission, the Board of Education and the three city councils in the county and ask for a nonbinding resolution of support. That resolution would basically say that the governments agree that wireless Internet access is worth pursuing.
Stone said that likely will happen at government meetings over the next week.
Then, Smithson is coming to Houston County in January and bringing Intel's wireless technology experts to talk more in-depth about how to get started.
Smithson said providing the service to all of Houston County would probably require two communications towers, each providing service in a 30-mile radius.
He said the service is consistent, reliable and faster than dial-up, DSL or cable Internet access.
Stone said the service is expected to cost $15 to $30 a month and accessing it would only require the customer to install a card on their computer that would cost $20 to $30.
The talks arose out of Intel's recent cooperation with Houston County High School.
Intel has given the school a $30,000 wireless technology lab and is involved in an experiment this year that provided some students and teachers with Tablet PCs. The company has named Houston County High a model school, giving it access to grants for technology services and products.
Local officials learned of the 802.16 WiMax technology from Smithson when he visited Houston County High.
"I heard about it and thought it would just be a tremendous opportunity for Houston County to get involved at the ground floor," Stone said.
Morgan Law, executive director of the Houston County Development Authority, said the service could have an important impact on the county's ability to attract and retain businesses.
Law said it would catch the eye of many high-tech military contractors, such as those already located around Robins Air Force Base, as long as the service could promise security.
"The one concern is the security of wireless," Law said. "A lot of the government contractors rely on heavy security, and as long as that concern could be alleviated I think it would be something that would interest them."
|
|
Minotaur
join:2003-06-10
Ronkonkoma, NY
| Do we really need more Broadband?
If we keep getting more competition into the area existing companies now wont be able to stand on their feet. In the 80's there was Job security then came the PSC and they allowed competition to come in the area Non Jobs at Verizon, Cablevision and so on are dying they are constantly laying people off at Cablevision and rehiring again. I understand the country doesnt want Monopolies but sometimes too much competition will hurt the consumer more because the consumer will lose their jobs. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to RoguePimp
Re: You've got to be kidding me
TV cable is sheilded from interference, RG-6, is pretty decent. Tell me how many power lines are sheilded, with the exception of the segment from the pole to house. |
|
downstreamer
join:2001-12-18
Paron, AR
| Why so negative?
I do not understand why so many of you are so opposed to even the idea of BPL. Granted it does not seem to be good in it's current state but will you not even concede that it may be possible to solve the noise problem. Just because you can't think of a solution doesn't mean there isn't one.
How do you know that if BPL was implemented that it would never become available to people in rural areas. It just might.
As for the physics lesson, I'll bet some tried to give the Wright brothers a lesson in physics as well. Thank goodness they did not listen. |
|
w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO
| reply to aSic
Re: Hah
Yes and don't forget the NTIA's study going on this very minute. They will release their results after the 1st. I'm sure they will also express serious concern over the noise floor problems BPL causes in the HF spectrum. This release will be before the next FCC move, and it will crush this crappy technology once and for all. What a waste of time and money this has caused for many, the engineers who are responsible for not paying attention to physics 101 lessons should be flogged. You cannot put an RF signal on a long wire and expect it to stay within the wire - DUH! It will radiate. Those who ignor history are doomed to repeat it.
So all you bitheads don't listen to us hams who are highly knowledgable in RF issues next time just wait for the big boys to come and back us up again. |
|
trisomy
Premium
join:2002-05-23
Houston, TX
| reply to moonpuppy
Re: Aren't We Splitting Hairs
I understand your concern however VOIP is the beginning of IP voice convergence and handheld devices already double as mobile telephones. I grant you a WAP/Router with battery backup would be required but these devices could be driven by current affordable retail solutions. However, none of these issues seem to be a prohibition to abandon the most ubiquitous last mile structure available to us not to mention the possibility of gaining a redundant IP access pipe. |
|
TACSPEED
Premium
join:2001-04-14
Tacoma, WA
 ·Advanced Stream
| reply to Transmaster
Re: You've got to be kidding me
Does the emission level due to PLC using OFDM exceed FCC regulations?
Do FRS radios and cell phones raise the base noise level?
We wouldn't want breaker, breaker Bob's CB or the kids walkie talkies to interfere with that emergency call.
--
Fiber Optics is the future of high-speed internet access. Stop by the BBR Fiber Optic Forum. |
|
N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN
| reply to downstreamer
Re: Why so negative?
The opposition to BPL is not to its intended purpose of providing broadband access. It is because the high frequency radio spectrum will be rendered useless in the areas where it is deployed; as collateral damage. Please see »www.qsl.net/k3ng/bpl.html
As for the rural question, the problem with BPL is economics, not physics. BPL as implemented in the HF spectrum, requires repeaters often enough to make long distance deployments more expensive than alternatives. On this BPL opponents are merely stating the obvious.
The Wright brothers were actually very knowledgeable of the physics of flight. Their flier did not spring fully developed on a napkin. They spent years building and testing models and doing real engineering; exactly what the BPL proponents DIDN'T do when it comes to interference. They learned the physics lessons and help launch an industry.
The BPL situation is more like 19th century England where the proliferation of coal powered devices led to the worse air pollution the world has ever known; as collateral damage. They got away with it because no one spoke up and the next generation had to fix it. |
|
N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN | reply to TACSPEED
Re: You've got to be kidding me
The FCC part 15 emission level is only a guide. No unlicensed device can cause harmfull interference, regardless of emission level. |
|
N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN | reply to trisomy
Re: Aren't We Splitting Hairs
It has already been demonstrated that BPL technology that uses the HF spectrum can be shut down by a nearby legal (or illegal) CW transmitter. How then can BPL be considered to be a 'robust', or even reliable IP access pipe? |
|
David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| reply to trisomy
said by trisomy :
I understand your concern however VOIP is the beginning of IP voice convergence and handheld devices already double as mobile telephones. I grant you a WAP/Router with battery backup would be required but these devices could be driven by current affordable retail solutions. However, none of these issues seem to be a prohibition to abandon the most ubiquitous last mile structure available to us not to mention the possibility of gaining a redundant IP access pipe.
Key is the maintaining the availability of a zero infrastructure communications solution. HF is a proven working solution used world wide and no proven alternative exists.
Internet connectivity can be provided by many different solutions and BPL does not offer any compelling features.
BPL economics only work because BPL system “externalize their costs” by creating costs for other users. |
|
David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| reply to trisomy
said by trisomy :
It appears that BPL is one of the few access options that reach a majority of citizens.
The phone line is just as ubiquitous and DSL is the worlds leading Internet access technology.
The only barrier to providing DSL and Internet connectivity is political and the greed of the Telcos.
DSL should be part of the universal service obligation. |
|
trisomy
Premium
join:2002-05-23
Houston, TX
| reply to N0JCG
said by N0JCG :
It has already been demonstrated that BPL technology that uses the HF spectrum can be shut down by a nearby legal (or illegal) CW transmitter. How then can BPL be considered to be a 'robust', or even reliable IP access pipe?
I did not mean to suggest that BPL is foolproof. I simply suggested that it is another alternative pipe that should be investigated rather than eliminated. |
|
David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| BPL - history of a failed legacy technology
First a little history (those that ignore history get to repeat the mistakes).
BPL (AKA PLC/PLT/DPL) is a tired old legacy technology that has struggled with interference issues since it was first rolled out in Manchester, England in 1997 (one year before the introduction of DSL to Europe). Nortel designed the system. The UK authorities tolerated the interference for a time but when the emergency services traced interference to BPL it was shut down.
Development moved to Germany, Nortel struggled on and eventually decided that the interference issues could not be resolved. Siemens then took up the lead, after several thousand customers had been connected up, Siemens came to the same conclusion as Nortel and exited the business. The next company to enter the business was Ascom based in Switzerland. Then an Israeli company called Mainnet entered the BPL market using chips from a Spanish company called DS2.
Tests were made in Japan and the authorities banned BPL due to the interference problems. Next Finland shut down their BPL system due to interference problems.
By 2003 there were 7,000 users in Europe with a multitude of test sites, all small scale. BPL customer growth was stagnant.
The U.S. was never considered a market for BPL because of the architecture of the electrical distribution system. In most of Northern Europe electrical distribution is underground with about 200~300 houses for each transformer. In the U.S. much of the electrical distribution is overhead with up to 6 houses sharing a transformer.
In what can only be described as a desperate last ditch attempt to sell product and survive, the BPL industry created a "phantom" product that answered the FCC's need for rural broadband. The myth was propagated that BPL was the answer to rural broadband deployment. The FCC commissioners bought the story, the press talked about Internet at every socket.
The reality is that of all the Internet distribution technologies BPL is the least suited to go any distance. Every 2,000 feet an expensive repeater in needed to boost the signals.
Now to the myths
Clean technology myth
Tales of interference had preceded BPLs arrival, the myth that the interference issue had been solved (first generation problem!) was told to anyone who would listen. The lobbyists were very successful, they managed to get an FCC commissioner to state that the interference complaints were "unsubstantiated". How the interference problem had been solved was not made clear (trust us!!!!).
The reality is that the interference is even worse than ever, the modulation technique has been changed so that the interference sounds like noise and for many users it will look like a faulty radio issue. Tracking the source and proving the cause will be difficult, "skip" will take it thousands of miles.
High speed myth
To add speed to the solution for rural broadband was "icing on the cake". To create the illusion of speed, trial/demo systems where set up where four or five users enthused about speeds in the megabit range. BPL is a shared system and real world results with typical economic user numbers are about 250K (Broadband? more like Midband).
In conclusion
The only people who will profit from BPL are the power companies who will roll out niche systems in the few markets where the economics make sense. It will only take a few systems to trash the radio spectrum for a substantial portion of the western hemisphere.
There are many better ways to provide Internet access, when the choices are rated, BPL but any test comes bottom of the list however you make the measurement. |
|
