| Come out, come out, come out wherever you are.....Where are all the pro-BPL trolls at? Could it be they realize they were wrong? 
One by one the trials go down and one by one they figure out that it won't work.
Looks like the rural broadband is not "commercially viable" to BPL either.  |
|
| It was just a matter of time until we started seeing this. I wish I could have a crystal ball to look back and see how many utilities considered the technology, but quietly walked away. Those stories you don't see on a website or newspaper.
It's ironic that Penn Yan is looking at wireless from Nortel. Nortel was involved early on with BPL in Europe several years ago. They stopped their trial after interference problems cropped up and apparently never looked back. Mesh wireless is ideal when you have access to the poles. I hope Penn Yan and DVI is successful with wireless, and BBR can post a broadband success story and this community can serve as a model for others. |
|
p00ter_nerdWort Wort Wort
join:2003-09-02
East Berlin, PA | If they would just take all money invested in BPL and push harder for fiber... sigh.
At least Verizon is "pushing" Fiber. And, meh, SBC is apparently going to push for ADSL2. Perhaps in the next 10 years 1mb will be standard upload...
--
#^*% THE TCPA. Fight it here. »www.againsttcpa.com/ |
|
| OK, here I am with the good news about BPL. It has been tested succesfully and is being rolled out as we speak in the lone star state. Check it out!
»broadbandhorizons.com/bpl_networ···2003.htm
I know, not alot of meat and potatoes in the article. Would be nice if some of my fellow Texans from those communities would post some speed tests and tcp/ip info for the rest of us. |
|
|
|
| said by sessum:
OK, here I am with the good news about BPL. It has been tested succesfully and is being rolled out as we speak in the lone star state. Check it out!
»broadbandhorizons.com/bpl_networ···2003.htm
Their FAQ needs a bit of work...
7. Doesn't BPL interfere with other radio signals? How are you avoiding that issue?
Regarding radio interference, the equipment we are using complies with FCC Part 15 regulations and FCC power output levels. So far there has been no measured interference with radio communications.
Part 15 compliance does not mean no interference. As has been shown, compliance with the 30uV at 30m limit results in strong interference in any modern communications receiver. This is provable with simple mathematics and common formulas. Part 15 emissions limits weren't ever intended to prevent inteference, they just place a high water mark, so to speak. As far as no measured interference, it's unclear whether they mean their systems or all BPL systems. There's plenty of measurements of interference on other existing systems.
20. Where else in the country has BPL been implemented?
Manassas, Virginia got BPL in May, 2002. Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana got it in March, 2004. We have been told there are pilots underway in Missouri, and possibly Iowa. Other than those, we are not aware of any other activity west of the Mississippi. All other pilot projects and rollouts have been driven by the equipment manufacturers themselves to demonstrate their product. Broadband Horizons is the first service provider to bring this technology to the public.
I doubt they were the first. PPL I know is offering service and I believe City of Manassas and Progress Energy were doing it as well. PPL was charging people for it last year.
21. How can new customers sign up?
We do not expect public availability for the service to be announced before late 2004.
Ummm... see the previous question.  |
|
| Seems to me these guys are concentrating on areas where there is no broadband at all and have little hope of getting it in the near future. With Powell behind them I would bet some sweet government supplements are on the way or are already in place. If that is the case I would say BPL has a chance for CONTINUED success. In addition, and assuming the above is true, BPL should not interfere with the future fiber eutopia you guys envision. |
|
| said by sessum:
Seems to me these guys are concentrating on areas where there is no broadband at all and have little hope of getting it in the near future. With Powell behind them I would bet some sweet government supplements are on the way or are already in place. If that is the case I would say BPL has a chance for CONTINUED success. In addition, and assuming the above is true, BPL should not interfere with the future fiber eutopia you guys envision.
There's a reason why there are places that have little hope of getting broadband -- economics. If you do the math with BPL, it's no better, especially when you consider the limited distance of BPL, the number of repeaters needed, and the limited revenue in areas with low customer densities. All of the publicized working trials have been in suburban or metropolitan areas. I'm aware of only one system (in VA I think) that is proposed for a rural area.
BPL wouldn't interfere with a "fiber utopia". BPL is merely a speed bump on the way to fiber or wireless. |
|
Kamper
join:2004-07-20
Mansfield, OH | reply to moonpuppy
I'm professionally involved with BPL. IT works great! Dont believe what the detractors say (lies)... |
|
| said by Kamper:
I'm professionally involved with BPL. IT works great! Dont believe what the detractors say (lies)...
Where?
What lies? |
|
Kamper
join:2004-07-20
Mansfield, OH | Sorry, I cant say where - under NDA. Although it's not that hard to find out. At any rate, at this time it is true the ROI is not there for rural areas. But, any dense population in the thousands, even tier 5 cities can deploy it at a very reasonable cost.
The lies are the interference issues. These are politically driven and there is interference. |
|
| said by Kamper:
Sorry, I cant say where - under NDA. Although it's not that hard to find out. At any rate, at this time it is true the ROI is not there for rural areas. But, any dense population in the thousands, even tier 5 cities can deploy it at a very reasonable cost.
That you ctceo?
If you are under an NDA then merely stating you work on a BPL project is a violation. You've already said too much, not spill the rest or I call BS.
Also, thanks for at least clearing up the rural issue. One lie exposed, onto the rest.
said by Kamper:
The lies are the interference issues. These are politically driven and there is interference.
How are they politically driven? Explain.
Note the part I bolded. First you say there isn't then you say there is. 
The amateur community has proven time and time again that there is interference. Yet, the BPL operators still hide behind flawed studies and NDA's only stating there is no interference. Show the testing methods, show the hard data. You can't ignore all the complaints the FCC is getting. Put up or shut up. Simple. |
|
| reply to Kamper
said by Kamper:
Sorry, I cant say where - under NDA. Although it's not that hard to find out. At any rate, at this time it is true the ROI is not there for rural areas. But, any dense population in the thousands, even tier 5 cities can deploy it at a very reasonable cost.
The lies are the interference issues. These are politically driven and there is interference.
I guess everyone involved with the NTIA report is lying as well, not to mention the people that have been driving around with test equipment. One big conspiracy.
How are the interference issues politically driven? If anything, the promotion of BPL has been politically driven, read the statements of Powell and the commissioners. See how Powell promotes BPL every chance he gets and somehow makes time to visit BPL sites to promote it, but doesn't have the time to see interference measurements. Bush even found the time promote BPL in a speech. Read the rhetoric. How there's a political connection with the interference is beyond me.
Care to elaborate on how BPL interference is all lies, or is that information under an NDA as well? |
|
Kamper
join:2004-07-20
Mansfield, OH | reply to moonpuppy
Sorry guys abut taking so long to reply.
1) Nowhere in my NDA does it say I cant tell what I do.
2) I made a typo in the "there is interference" - it should have said "NO".
3) I've personally seen the location complained by the ARRL, guess what, their issues are not BPL issues.
4) BPL works, and works well. In addition, I saw a very nice rural model the other day.
I just wish people that dont know what they are talking about would shut up! |
|
Kamper
join:2004-07-20
Mansfield, OH | reply to moonpuppy
Sorry I havent responded! I'm too busy deploying!
A note about Penn Yan from the horses mouth: They have not given up on BPL, and the potential interference is not why they stopped the trial; Simply, the trial has ended.
Another note: Other countrys have been deploying BPL and are doing so faster than we are. |
|
| reply to Kamper
said by Kamper:
Sorry guys abut taking so long to reply.
1) Nowhere in my NDA does it say I cant tell what I do.
Really? Most I have seen say not to even mention what you do or the project, especially one that is emerging.
said by Kamper:
2) I made a typo in the "there is interference" - it should have said "NO".
Freudian slip?
said by Kamper:
3) I've personally seen the location complained by the ARRL, guess what, their issues are not BPL issues.
Then what are they?
said by Kamper:
4) BPL works, and works well. In addition, I saw a very nice rural model the other day.
Where? And don't pull your NDA now.
said by Kamper:
I just wish people that dont know what they are talking about would shut up!
Really? Most of us do. It's your lack of information and outright lies that have caused this.
said by Kamper:
A note about Penn Yan from the horses mouth: They have not given up on BPL, and the potential interference is not why they stopped the trial; Simply, the trial has ended.
Then what do you say to this article?
Funny thing is you BPL people say there isn't any interference yet the FCC now concedes there is. Sorry, but I'll have to raise the BS flag on you.
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/10/14/1/?nc=1 |
|
Kamper
join:2004-07-20
Mansfield, OH | Moonpuppy - You really need to relax with your BS flag. I'm sorry somebody has lied to you making you so gun shy. At any rate, I've got nothing to gain by being on this list so why would I BS? What about you? What do you have to gain or lose?
*Sorry for the long post. I tried to clean it up some. See my answers inline below...
-----------------------------------------------------------
said by Kamper :
1) Nowhere in my NDA does it say I cant tell what I do.
said by Moonpuppy :
Really? Most I have seen say not to even mention what you do or the project, especially one that is emerging.
said by Kamper :
What are you a lawyer? Then you should know that no two NDA's are the same. Everyone has their own customized NDA with different terms and conditions. Let me worry about mine and if I have violated it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
said by Kamper :
2) I made a typo in the "there is interference" - it should have said "NO".
said by Moonpuppy :
Freudian slip?
said by Kamper :
LOL - Right! You decide, or have you already?
-----------------------------------------------------------
said by Kamper :
3) I've personally seen the location complained by the ARRL, guess what, their issues are not BPL issues.
said by Moonpuppy :
Then what are they?
said by Kamper :
You're so smart, you tell us. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Think about it: The ARRL had interference issues well BEFORE BPL was around. Now they want to dump these on BPL. If you figure out what those were/are, you'll have an answer.
-----------------------------------------------------------
said by Kamper :
4) BPL works, and works well. In addition, I saw a very nice rural model the other day.
said by Moonpuppy :
Where? And don't pull your NDA now.
said by Kamper :
Why not claim NDA since you already say I violated it?
Moving on, in an attempt to clarify your question I separated my answer in two.
A) Where does BPL work? There are 4 public rollouts and dozens of pilot tests. These are not hard to find on the net. I'm too tired to list them for you.
B) Where did I see a nice rural model? I'm talking about a "Business Model". Yes, a profit making model for the capitalistic BPL pigs!
Try »www.ibec.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
said by Kamper :
5) I just wish people that dont know what they are talking about would shut up!
said by Moonpuppy :
Really? Most of us do. It's your lack of information and outright lies that have caused this.
said by Kamper :
OK, first, I apologize for getting out of line. I mean no disrespect but you have to admit there are too many mouths out there that dont know what they are talking about. As far as lies, I only believe in the truth and thats the only reason I took the time to post here. By lack of information do you mean the BPL companies should give you full disclosure before they embark on their ventures?
-----------------------------------------------------------
said by Kamper :
A note about Penn Yan from the horses mouth: They have not given up on BPL, and the potential interference is not why they stopped the trial; Simply, the trial has ended.
said by Moonpuppy :
Then what do you say to this article?
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/10/14/1
said by Kamper :
First, why trust anything the ARRL says? At any rate, remember, the key word is "potential". Your cell phone has the potential to blow up a gas station but that dont mean it will. If we hold everything back due to potential, we would still live in caves!
-----------------------------------------------------------
said by Moonpuppy :
Funny thing is you BPL people say there isn't any interference yet the FCC now concedes there is. Sorry, but I'll have to raise the BS flag on you.
said by Kamper :
A properly there deployed BPL network has NO interference issues. See the previous bullet point. Raise the BS flag all you want but keep in mind I am not a BPL person but rather a consultant. I deal with all types of technologies but happen to find BPL the most interesting at this time. I have no gain in which technology wins or loses as it is all still a network to me.
said by Kamper :
Thanks guys for all the fun! I truly hope this helps. Feel free to clean up this post for clarity if you reply. |
|
| Again, all you show is general information and NO hard evidence. The ARRL has shown not only the evidence but even their testing method.
As for that rural BPL site you posted, I see nothing specific. No prices, no deployment areas, nothing.
All I have seen is evidence saying it interferes and you first said there was none, now you say there is some slight. That's why I raise not only the BS flag but the "back peddler" title to go along with it.
Again, either post some real data with testing methods or the tag will simply remain. If your only retort is "sorry, but I work on this and you are wrong", then you will never win any arguments. |
|
Kamper
join:2004-07-20
Mansfield, OH | I hear ya and will do what I can but it will take some time as I'm too busy rolling out this "nasty" BPL "crap" to add anything on my plate at the moment. for the time being, keep in mind the truth is still the truth even though you have nothing to prove it by.
In the meantime, what evidence has the ARRL shown that convinces you? Everything I've seen says "potential" - big deal! I'd like to see somebody with credibility stake their reputation that BPL does and is causing interference. No real takers there! |
|
| There is a video showing the interference. What more proof do you need? Oh, that's right, you are not interested in real world data. 
My guess is that you aren't busy at all deploying but busy trying to mask all the interference your technology gives off.  |
|
Kamper
join:2004-07-20
Mansfield, OH | moonpuppy said: There is a video showing the interference. What more proof do you need? Oh, that's right, you are not interested in real world data.
Kamper replies: For such a skeptical person you believe a video put out by a biased group?
Talk about not interested in real world data! You never did answer my previous question as to why your biased against BPL? Are you a Ham?
-----------------------------------------------------------
moonpuppy said: My guess is that you aren't busy at all deploying but busy trying to mask all the interference your technology gives off.
Kamper replies: There you go "guessing" again! I think I see the problem here. I have no association (not even stock) in any equipment manufacturers. I am a consultant and I work no matter what the technology. My only reason for these posts are to be sure the truth is known. I realize many will never be convinced.
With that said...I feel I'm wasting my time. I hope this at least make others consider all views.
Take care and maybe we'll meet at your area's BPL install, eh? |
|
