Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Note: In a Major City
Note that DirecTV wants to see this test done in a major city. BPL if it succeeds at all will only be in areas that already have broadband internet service, it is not an answer at all for the digital divide. |
|
robertfl
Premium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
1 edit | Didn't they do this before?
I clearly remember Destruct TV's Broadband plan before.
...and it failed!
I would like to see the rest of the world get broadband. If this is the way, just don't let it screw up local AM/FM broadcasts.
-Rob
»www.savenetradio.org |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | they had DirecTV DSL but that was not under Liberty Media. They do have Wi-Fi with a partnership with Eartlink |
|
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
1 edit | Why not go back to DSL
Why not go back to reselling DSL? If memory serves there were a bunch here who liked them and very disapointed to see the quick exit. DSLExtreme on many occasions has mentioned that they were even working on FiOS reselling deals.
Of course "any day now" back in 2005 »Reselling FIOS - when?
Test order installed 2005?
»Any update on FIOS availability?
DSLX comment missing from this thread
»Is FIOS sill comming
But if reselling fiber is still possible it opens the door for D* to get back into a future-proof reselling biz. |
|
Mactron
el camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
| RF Polluter
Bring this RF spectrum Polluter (BPL) to my neighborhood, and I drop any and ALL current subscriptions to my DTV ! Nuff said ! 
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well.  |
|
airshark
--... ...-- -.. . -. -.... .-.. -.--
Premium
join:2003-05-20
Hollister, CA
 ·Charter Pipeline
| said by Mactron  :Bring this RF spectrum Polluter (BPL) to my neighborhood, and I drop any and ALL current subscriptions to my DTV ! Nuff said ! Amen brother Ham! |
|
Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
|  Fool Me Twice? Hell no!
Once upon a time, I had the bestest DSL service ever. It was only 1.0 Mbps, but it was symmetrical. And it came with a static IP address at no extra charge. That charge was $50/mo. That's 25 times as fast downstream, and 35 times as fast as the best upstream rates that I ever got from a "56k" POTS modem, for only 2 times the price. Although there was no SLA, my uptime was well over 99%. I was happy.
Then DirecTV stepped into the picture. I must admit that they were state of the art...at billing, that is. They didn't seem to care about anything besides that. But they had billing working like a charm, even after they quit service, they just kept on billing and billing.
No, DirecTV will not be seeing another cent of my money. They had their chance and blew it. Abandoning their DirecPC customers is yet another reminder of how little they care about maintaining business relationships. I wouldn't go to them for satellite TV service either. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to ColorBASIC
Re: Why not go back to DSL
I used to have DirecTV DSL. I wouldn't go as far as to say their service was particularly noteworthy or that I was "very disappointed by their quick exit". It just worked reliably and I liked the fact that I got a static IP address for the same price other ISPs were charging for dynamic service. I don't think the vast majority of the audience DirecTV was attempting to court cared about static IP addressing.
It just had no synergy at all with their satellite TV service (which I also had at the time). There was no benefit to having both, other than the fact that they showed up on the same bill.
If they couldn't make a go of DirecTV DSL, I don't know why they're trying to stick their nose into BPL now. The only reason bundling is such a hot topic is because people get discounts for combining services. TWC offers me a $15/month discount when I order all three of their services.
With DirecTV DSL, because there were extremely few shared hard costs between DSL and satellite television, they couldn't really offer any noteworthy perks. I don't see how this has changed at all now, and it certainly seems risky for them to get invovled with BPL.
-- Rob
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams. |
|
fdf
@comcast.net | reply to Time4aNAP
Re: Fool Me Twice? Hell no!
hell no BPL |
|
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
2 edits | reply to djrobx
Re: Why not go back to DSL
The only thing I can see coming out of this deployment is DBS VOD but like TiVo, they can offer VoD to those who has a box with connectivity. If the DBS box has a RJ45 port they could run a speed test to their server to see if it supports streaming and if it doesn't pull a XBX360 or Vongo and xfer the VOD program before use.
This is what I was hoping E* would do with their MPEG4 DVR since it's RJ45 equipped but after the 2/14 IPTV deployment rumor proved false I am just waiting for something to come around.
If not for my E* contract I would go back to cable just for VOD as there aren't yet enough titles on the XBX360. And after digital simulcasting and other improvements the TWC picture even for the 'lower 100' looks as good or better than DBS, especially on their HD channels. |
|
RR Conductor
RailRoadDude
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
·Comcast
| reply to airshark
Re: RF Polluter
People could say you are the ones polluting the spectrum, and preventing a broadband technology from being deployed, it goes both ways. Something like this has the potential to bring broadband to millions who can't currently get it, let's not shut it out. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to airshark
Sorry your 1927 technology may be hampered. People like you would be against the telephone because it was ruining the telegraph. |
|
airshark
--... ...-- -.. . -. -.... .-.. -.--
Premium
join:2003-05-20
Hollister, CA
·Charter Pipeline
2 edits | If you think the laws in reference to spectrum are silly and 1927-ish, then please, by all means lobby your congressman and the FCC to have them changed.
Until that time, no matter how silly you think my hobby is, the law should be followed. Interference problems arise from the fact that the BPL system interference complaints are not addressed properly when an issue arises. The law as well as the operating agreement that these companies enter into is not followed or enforced.
We are allocated that spectrum for our "hobby" use as well as the very small chance that you need us to communicate when all else fails. The federal government obviously sees a need for the existence of Amateur Radio. If they thought it outmoded and a waste of bandwidth, they would and could simply squash our existence. Our numbers are small and getting smaller.
Instead, the Department of Homeland Security is funding & outfitting countless Amateur Radio Disaster Services groups around the country as we speak. Again, there is a need.
You can be assured that if MY amateur station was interfering with BPL service locally, I WOULD respond to the interference complaint and do all that I could to eliminate it. The same cannot be said for the BPL trials run to date.
People get so accustomed to modern life amenities like the internet, telephone, and email that many forget it simply takes a small misfortune or failure in infrastructure to have those comforts removed. Then what is left? The self-sufficient volunteer amateur radio operator.
I truly hope that you will never need our services in your lifetime, but if you do, we will all gladly assist you with a smile.
P.S.-I can and do send email & short text messages over the radio...I don't believe email existed in 1927. I could be wrong though. I am only 27 years old.  |
|
RR Conductor
RailRoadDude
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
·Comcast
| I don't think anybody is arguing with you on those things, at least I'm not. What I'm saying is this technology has the potential to bring broadband to many who would otherwise be without it, and in this day and age, the internet is as important as the phone, or a radio or tv, and in times of crisis, can keep functioning when other means have been shut down. I think we can find a way for both to coexist.
--
»www.gorail.org
See MAJOR freight&passenger action@ the Galesburg, IL RailCam! »205.245.189.161:1100/
My soon to be employer,as an Asst.Conductor-
»www.amtrak.com
»www.modocrailroadacademy.com -Grad,Class of 2-07,woohoo! |
|
airshark
--... ...-- -.. . -. -.... .-.. -.--
Premium
join:2003-05-20
Hollister, CA | We can agree on that for sure. I LOVE the internet. I'm all for everyone getting it. Even over BPL. I just wish that they would stick to their operating agreements and deal with interference the same as I am legally required to. |
|
oursys08
join:2001-10-10
Manchester, KY | reply to fdf
Re: Fool Me Twice? Hell no!
I was wondering if this really is going to take effect? Im wanting fast internet in my area so bad but you can't game on hugnes I heard it was really slow. Thank You Everyone! |
|
Time4aNAP
Premium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL
| said by oursys08 :I was wondering if this really is going to take effect? After years of trying, it seems that nobody can make it production worthy. That's a bit of a problem.
I don't know how it is where you live, but in Chicago, the electric monopoly that got huge rate hikes based on the claim that they needed the money to maintain their aging infrastructure blew it all at the roulette wheel, or some lame excuse like that. So our infrastructure is quite literally falling apart, burning itself to the ground (plenty of underground fires too), or otherwise failing on a regular basis.
I doubt that we'll be seeing anything other than the usual unwanted noise and spikes coming over our power lines for a long, long time. I hope you have better luck where you are. If you're in TVA country, you have some hope. |
|
kruser
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to robertfl
Re: Didn't they do this before?
said by robertfl :I clearly remember Destruct TV's Broadband plan before. ...and it failed! I would like to see the rest of the world get broadband. If this is the way, just don't let it screw up local AM/FM broadcasts. -Rob » www.savenetradio.org I think what you are saying is that BPL will wipe out AM radio reception but I'm not clear when you mention FM.
FM radio for broadcast purpose starts around 87 Mhz. I think the highest I've heard for BPL was 54 Mhz.
So FM radio should not be a problem!
But, BPL is a problem! I actually enjoy being able to listen to broadcasts from other countries on the HF or SW bands which BPL will surely destroy.
No, I'm not an amateur (HAM) operator but I know radio.
HF/SW is a proven way of communication all the way around this screwed up world. Show me a cell phone that can talk around the world without any infrastructure and I'll give you a dollar! |
|
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| reply to RR Conductor
Re: RF Polluter
> People could say you are the ones polluting the spectrum,
> and preventing a broadband technology from being
> deployed, it goes both ways.
BPL has chosen to deploy under FCC rules that require that it not cause harmful interference to licensed radio service and that state clearly that BPL must accept any interference caused to it.
To have made the poor engineering choice of designing systems that must operate under those conditions and then to cry foul and claim that those same licensed services are "preventing BPL from BPL from being deployed" is pretty much a contradiction in terms.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab |
|
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| reply to RR Conductor
> I think we can find a way for both to coexist.
Actually, on behalf of ARRL, I have been working to do just that.
I first must note, however, that calling Amateur Radio a "1927 technology" is not going to accomplish coexistance in any form. Amateur Radio uses a wide variety of operating modes, from simple Morse code through digital, television and even satellites, with communications satellites built and lauched by hams. And we won't even get into the public-service value of Amateur Radio. That sort of language is intended to be inflammatory. It bad enough when some of the BPL organizations use terms like "armchair amateurs using vacuum tube technology," but if we are to have a rational discussion, such trolling should not be used here.
For BPL to coexist with licensed radio services, it simply has to avoid any and all spectrum that is use near it (typically a few hundred feet to as much as a mile away from wires carrying BPL). BPL operating at the FCC limits can be as much as 60 dB stronger than the local noise floor. (That is a factor or 1,000,000X power).
To avoid interference, BPL must filter the spectrum it doesn't use to a good-enough degree that it doesn't cause objectionable noise to the nearby use of radio spectrum. (For a good example of what "objectionable" means, ask yourself how much noise you would tolerate on your routine use of your home telephone.)
There has been progress made on the coexistance front. To date, Amperion, Current Technologies, Motorola (now out of the access BPL market), Mitsubishi (now out of the North Amercian BPL market), Corinex, IBEC and Kaicom -- most BPL manufacturers, are actively working with ARRL on interference mitigation, and trying different system configurations and designs. (Main.net is not yet actively working with ARRL, but recently, one of their engineers approached me to note that their new systems are an improvement over what was seen in Manassas, so ARRL and Main.net are basically talking about working together.) At this point, most, but not all, BPL manufacturers are working with ARRL toward coexistance with Amateur Radio.
The results have been encouraging. First out of that gate was HomePlug technology, which implemented its first-generation product with spectral masks to protect Amateur Radio, and has maintained that design technique through two generations, into HomePlug AV, the 200 Mb/s technology. (See »p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/HomePlug_ARRL.pdf).
Current Technologies, the BPL manufacturer whose equipment is being used in Cincinnati, OH and Dallas, TX uses HomePlug technology on the 240-volt wiring, and 32-48 MHz on overhead power lines. The result? In both cities, BPL is deploying without major interference problems.
DS2, a BPL-chipset manufacturer, has also worked closely with ARRL, as have many of its customers, making modems using DS2 ICs. DS2 improved the performance of its filtering, with the result that ARRL site visits to several DS2-based areas (Houston, TX; Springfield, MA;Bowling Green, OH and San Diego, CA) showed that the improved notching significantly improved the EMC performance of the system, to the point that mobile Amateur Radio operation, and presumably most fixed operation, was not seeing widespread harmful interference.
There is still work to go. In most cases, these improvements have not been demonstrated by all of the BPL manufacturers in larger deployments. (Cincinatti, Dallas and Houston are pretty large at this point, so those are exceptions). BPL organizations like UPLC.org have not (yet?) demonstrated any real spirit of mutual cooperation, and ARRL does not work with them the way it does with HomePlug, the Home Phone Networking Alliance, the DSL committees and the National Cable Telecommunications Society, to name a few.
Organizationally, the industry is missing the EMC boat, and UPLC is doing little or nothing to try to open that door, despite some prodding from some of its member companies. But ARRL has been able to an end run around that general non-cooperative approach and directly approach many of the BPL manufacturers, integrators and electric utilities and accomplish a start of what it has been able to do for other industries such as cable and DSL -- prevent most interference before it happens, and develop solutions for the remainder.
Another major hole thus far is in the industry standards area. There are successful models for BPL deployment, but the industry has generally blocked the inclusion of those models in industry standards. (Although it does remain to be seen how these standards hold up to the ballot process. Under the IEEE model, the group that votes on a standard is not necessarily the same group that created it.)
I must add that all of the above applies to Amateur Radio spectrum. So far, none of the BPL operations are making any attempt to avoid the use of the international shortwave broadcast bands. The SW listeners, however, are not filing complaints, but most may not know what the noise source is, know that they can complain or want to literally make a federal case out of noise on their SW listening.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Laboratory
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06111
Tel: 860-594-0318
Web: »www.arrl.org/bpl
|
|
