Stewy85
Premium
join:2003-01-16
Sharon, WI
clubs: | Looks Good
I would love to have those speeds but not at the sacrifice of ham radio.
--
0111010001110010011101010111010001101000 |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | 5GHz == Good, but where's the fiber?
BPL at 5GHz seems to be a better solution, but where's the fiber? |
|
cyberthugin
join:2002-03-12
Kew Gardens, NY | I agree
There needs to be more testing for me to switch and with speeds like that, would make anyone switch. |
|
The Folsom
Kindly Shut Your Noise Hole.
Premium
join:2003-01-31
Yucaipa, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Stewy85
Re: Looks Good
said by Stewy85  :
I would love to have those speeds but not at the sacrifice of ham radio.
"From this test data, it is apparent that radio amateur operations in the test neighborhood could cause many homes to lose their Internet connection during the times when the radio amateur is transmitting," the report notes.
It would seem from the above quote that ham radio and BPL are mutually deleterious and incompatible technologies... BPL can take out ham radio and ham radio can take out BPL packets.
5GHz is interesting, though, and I hope that this spectrum will be used instead of HF... The interference potential is much lower and much more easily mitigated.
Ham radio need not sacrificed if 5GHz BPL is utilized versus HF BPL.
All the other radio services in the HF can be saved, too!
--
I once accidentally spilled spot remover on my dog and he disappeared. You know what I hate? Indian Givers... No, I take that back. »www.folsomtech.com |
|
ParanoiaInc
join:2002-08-28
Tucker, GA | Hmm, a new form of broadband over commercial radio
Well, while many of you may like your Spamradio stations, I for one do not like them. I think that most of the radio stations out there have little to offer, much the same way I feel about newspapers and the local evening news. |
|
stopping-by
| reply to Eat Me
Re: 5GHz == Good, but where's the fiber?
Since when does BPL, "broadband via power-lines", need fiber? |
|
jmkraft
Essayons
Premium
join:2002-04-11
Paris, IL
1 edit | reply to ParanoiaInc
Re: Hmm, a new form of broadband over commercial radio
++Upon reflection, I do not wish to post++. |
|
Mactron
el camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv | 5 Ghz is a nice start...
The higher the frequency for BPL the better. 5 Ghz is a nice start. Trying to pull off BPL at any frequencies below microwave is going to be an interfereance disaster for everyone. Lets see, BPL at 50 Ghz sounds good.;) Lets hope 5 Ghz works out. |
|
ld2950
join:2001-09-22
Medford, MA
| Hams
Sounds like paranoia is trolling to me...You really should read up on ham radios and the services they supply my uncle was a ham operator till the day he died call letters W1PAN stop insulting the rest of us and don't reply unless you have something to add to the discussion.. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Solution is worse than the problem...
quote:
There are some alternative BPL technologies under development, that operate primarily within the unlicensed 5 GHz ISM band. One version of the technology being developed by Corridor systems uses 216mbps capable BPL up to a point, and then connects to the end user via 802.11 wireless gear (see pdf of Corridor's BPL specs). Such BPL alternatives are currently being tested by California PG&E. However there are several technologies that either currently use, or plan to use the 5GHZ band (like 802.11a or the looming 802.11n) - so the interference battle may simply change battlefields.
This "solution" of using the 5Ghz band is just as bad as the current problem... So now they are screwing up another portion of the spectrum to save the HAM spectrum?! I love it. This BPL stuff is turning out to be a radio frequencies shell game of sorts... All I can say is that better stay OUT of the 5Ghz range.
--
Male by birth... Geek by choice
The Center is where its at... |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to The Folsom
Re: Looks Good
said by The Folsom :
5GHz is interesting, though, and I hope that this spectrum will be used instead of HF... The interference potential is much lower and much more easily mitigated.
Ham radio need not sacrificed if 5GHz BPL is utilized versus HF BPL.
All the other radio services in the HF can be saved, too!
So wait, you are advocating knocking out everything in the 5Ghz band instead? Tell me, how is that a solution rather than just pushing this problem out of the HAM world and into another person's world ? This "solution" is going to interefere with everything from telephones to data networks and is probably why they aren't putting it in the 2.4Ghz range.
--
Male by birth... Geek by choice
The Center is where its at... |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| This makes no difference
While this article makes an interesting point about HAM radio interfering with BPL as well as vice versa.
As the study points out, BPL is just as subject to interference as the interference it puts out itself. That means using some intermediate technology for the last mile still doesn't fix anything. And 5Ghz, what a joke, there are huge LOS limitations on this as anyone who's tried and 802.11a setup can attest to. Not to mention you now have cordless phones and other devices running on this band ready to interfere. Finally you have WISPs also using this band.
Personally I think if the money and time wasted in some of these "technologies" was used to improve infrastructure in the last mile everyone would have decent speeds. By the time BPL becomes accepted, the power companies will find out it would have been cheaper to run fiber to every house and offer phone and TV service as well. (Why not they have the rights of way)
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to Mactron
Re: 5 Ghz is a nice start...
Dude read the article, the BPL carrier frequency ain't changing, they just aren't going to put BPL in the houses. You're going to have an 802.11 access point on the pole outside your house for service.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA | reply to bmn
Re: Solution is worse than the problem...
No, actually they are going to be using both the original spectrum and the 5 Ghz spectrum, taking up even more spectrum than originally planned.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| said by cmaenginsb :
No, actually they are going to be using both the original spectrum and the 5 Ghz spectrum, taking up even more spectrum than originally planned.
That's even better...  Must have missed that part in the article.
--
Male by birth... Geek by choice
The Center is where its at... |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| reply to ld2950
Re: Hams
all he did was add his opinion if you feel it isn't something added then ignore it or respond in a civil manner. No need to attack him. Just becuase your an operator doesn't make every one else wrong.
--
This package does not contain a winner... |
|
Tomek
Premium
join:2002-01-30
Brooklyn, NY
 ·Packet8
| reply to bmn
Re: Looks Good
I agree. The article didn't specify if this 5Ghz spectrum won't interfere with any 5.x Ghz devices, like Wifi(a) or new wireless phones.
BPL must find a way to limit their interference to minimum.
I wonder if BPL is causing a lot of interference in urban areas when most of the powerlines are underground.
--
There are 3200 types of people.Those who understand HEX and those who don't. |
|
The Folsom
Kindly Shut Your Noise Hole.
Premium
join:2003-01-31
Yucaipa, CA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to bmn
The interference at 5GHz is of a lower power, is localized by the nature of RF energy at this frequency and is less likely to impact devices in the rest of the world. The interferences that would occur are much more easily mitigated. There are also ham allocations in this spectrum, so I am not being unfair to others. Wi-Fi at 5GHz is used mostly indoors, and less likely to be severely impacted. Besides, ISM is an unlicensed service, so there are no licensed services being taken out.
I do not advocate taking out ANYTHING at 5GHz or at any other frequency.
But this seems a better choice given the number of licensed services that already reside within HF. The number of unlicensed users in the 5GHz range is quite small in comparison.
--
I once accidentally spilled spot remover on my dog and he disappeared. You know what I hate? Indian Givers... No, I take that back. »www.folsomtech.com |
|
N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN
| reply to Stewy85
The allocation at 5Ghz for UNII already takes into account different frequencies for indoor and outdoor use. Any conflicts are likely to be local in nature and can be mitigated by coordination, perhaps by the hardware itself. The bottom line is that there is more than 10 times the bandwidth for broadband up there than in the HF spectrum.
The AMRAD study adds the nail of unreliable to BPL's downside.
HF BPL is unshielded, unlicensed, unreliable and irresponsible. |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | reply to stopping-by
Re: 5GHz == Good, but where's the fiber?
I didn't say that BPL required fiber. I'm saying that while 5GHz BPL is a nice idea, I think that it's just a patch, and that fiber is the real solution to the problem. |
|
