how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
2486 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| | Solid tech, Solid revenue model For all the hysteria and overreaction on this thread, I wonder if anyone cares that the Main.net tech has been certified as Part 15 compliant by an FCC accredited laboratory in actual field conditions.
Also, for you folks who just can't see how any broadband service could be offered for $30, let the adults handle the business model. Prospect Street Broadband, a privately held company, has plenty of investor money behind them to build a national BPL brand. Incidentally, PSB is a subsidiary of Prospect Street Ventures, a Wall Street VC firm.
The technology simply isn't that expensive to deploy and maintain. Once Manassas is live, and point sources of RF leakage are plugged, interference will be within FCC limits, no better or worse than garage door openers and baby monitors.
So there's my response to the claims of no technical data to support non-interference (which involves proving a negative, BTW), and to the ludicrous objections on the financial side.
YES, I've seen the Manassa revenue model, and NO, I will not share it just to satisfy BPL detractors that enjoy hurling insults and invective at a emerging technology they fear exploring and developing in the USA.
That said, BPL is only an interim solution until FTTH is available. The idea of a massive federal program is stupid. Broadband is being deployed by the municipalities in rural areas, just as the power grid was in the 1930s. No giant (wasteful) federal government program was required then, and none is required now.
Also its "accepted" not "excepted" for the guy in Wyoming. | |
|  | | Re: Solid tech, Solid revenue model said by proBPLguy:
For all the hysteria and overreaction on this thread, I wonder if anyone cares that the Main.net tech has been certified as Part 15 compliant by an FCC accredited laboratory in actual field conditions.
Part 15 compliance is meaningless and it doesn't by any means disprove the potential for interference. It's well known that operating at the 30uV/m at 30 meter limit level will cause interference in all modern communications receivers.
Most every other vendor has claimed Part 15 compliance. I hope investors aren't considering this some kind of milestone.
quote:
The technology simply isn't that expensive to deploy and maintain. Once Manassas is live, and point sources of RF leakage are plugged, interference will be within FCC limits, no better or worse than garage door openers and baby monitors.
Oh my, the point source model rears its ugly head again. This was a result of marketing people filing NOI responses. It's been shown that a BPL system acts much like a distributed antenna, not a point source. Emissions may be within FCC limits, but interference, by the very definition of the word, is never within Part 15 limits as you claim. Once interference is there, Part 15 operation must cease. And how do you "plug" a source of interference on an unshielded medium ?
quote:
So there's my response to the claims of no technical data to support non-interference (which involves proving a negative, BTW), and to the ludicrous objections on the financial side.
But where's the data? Part 15 emissions compliance doesn't prove non-interference. The "point source" fallacy that some BPL vendors have clung to isn't based in reality. | |
| | | | Re: let the adults handle the business model You are right about emission and interference being two different things. You are wrong about Part 15 not addressing interference. Manassas trials have shown no harmful interference, per FCC Part 15. As I said before, the Main.net solution has been certified as Part 15 compliant by an FCC accredited lab in field conditions. This is hardly meaningless, but not a huge milestone for investors to jump in on.
As far as the point-source subject I bring up, I know that rural municipal utilities that already have RF-leakage problems from loose line connections and other such routine maintenance issues. These emissions will be exacerbated by BPL transmissions, and will require some work intially to plug these emissions. As you said, interference is a different issue, and is not in the harmful range per FCC Part 15.
From the Definitions section of Part 15:
"(m) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with
this chapter." | |
| | | | | Re: let the adults handle the business model said by proBPLguy:
You are right about emission and interference being two different things. You are wrong about Part 15 not addressing interference. Manassas trials have shown no harmful interference, per FCC Part 15. As I said before, the Main.net solution has been certified as Part 15 compliant by an FCC accredited lab in field conditions. This is hardly meaningless, but not a huge milestone for investors to jump in on.
Perhaps this is a battle of semantics as Part 15 addresses interference, but Part 15 certification/compliance does not preclude the existence of harmful interference. You original post implied that because Main.net is Part 15 certified, the interference isn't there. That is simply not the case.
quote:
As far as the point-source subject I bring up, I know that rural municipal utilities that already have RF-leakage problems from loose line connections and other such routine maintenance issues. These emissions will be exacerbated by BPL transmissions, and will require some work intially to plug these emissions.
Interference from arcing due to anomalies in power lines is essentially point source, but this is a totally different thing from BPL interference. Yes, such an anomaly that causes arcing will also cause intermodulation products to be created from the BPL signal passing through and thus be radiated, but classic BPL interference in a properly working system is not point source. BPL interference to licensed services does not lie upon proper system maintenance. The issues are still there even in a well-maintained system as the power lines are an unshielded, naturally radiating medium at high frequencies.
quote:
As you said, interference is a different issue, and is not in the harmful range per FCC Part 15.
Ummm, I didn't say that. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but there isn't a litmus test or a "harmful range" as you imply. Again, being within emission limits doesn't nullify the second tenet of Part 15 of not causing harmful interference. You have to comply with both an emissions limit and not cause interference. Being within the emissions limit doesn't guarantee that you won't interfere. In fact if you're at the limit or within a couple tens of dB under the limit, it's likely you will interfere with a licensed service in this band. | |
| | | | | said by proBPLguy:
As I said before, the Main.net solution has been certified as Part 15 compliant by an FCC accredited lab in field conditions. This is hardly meaningless, but not a huge milestone for investors to jump in on.
Not only is this meaningless, it is in fact a very deceptive statement.
The certification of Part 15 compliance by a FCC accredited laboratory only pertains to the digital portions of one Main.net device. More significantly, this certification does not address the compliance of the carrier current portion of that device which is at the crux of concerns over Part 15 compliance and interference.
Further, an examination of the test reports shows the device was certified based on tests conducted on a laboratory bench in Israel not under "actual field conditions" in the US.
Main.net choose to seek out certification from a "telecommunications certification body" when it could have simply submitted a Declaration of Conformity (DoC) based on the same test data.
One can speculate that Main.net obtained certification for a portion of one of their devices just so it would be technically correct to say "certification of Part 15 compliance by an FCC accredited laboratory" while omitting the key details. It also suggests a reason why the other of Main.net's devices needed to implement the BPL infrastructure have not likewise been certified.
This is not to imply that Main.net does not have all the requisite test data needed to verify Part 15 compliance. Perhaps the compliance data was even obtained by an accredited testing lab.
However that would not constitute certification of compliance which is a term having a very specific meaning in the context to Part 15. | |
| | | w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO | "Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with
this chapter."
Yes a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with this chapter means "any licensed services" these including amateur radio operators, who are federally licensed, and thus if BPL causes repeated interference to any such services, it must cease operation. Also any interference that BPL receives from said licensed services it must accept, and this includes any interference that proves harmful to it's operation. | |
| | | | |
| | Re: let the adults handle the business model Is this what the Enron people once said???
said by proBPLguy:
The technology simply isn't that expensive to deploy and maintain.
Are the "adults" that handle the business model really talking to the deployment, operations and maintenance people? It does not look like they are in the budget.
Have you got any evidence of this, like a white paper web link? Have they ever done a loopback test, added a subscriber, rolled a truck, climbed a pole, handled electrified gear, troubleshooted an irritated subscriber? Do they know how this compare with DSL, cable and fiber gear? Where is the ROI?
Are these adults ready for the Enron auditors moving on? And do you play poker too? | |
| | | | Re: let the adults handle the business model Silly Enron allusions aside, of course the operations are in the budget. The line maintenance, and indeed the deployment of the Main.net equipment, in Manassas are performed by the municipal utility, which is equipped with the proper test equipment, and gets paid a royalty per-user per-month. The BPL system will also provide Automated Meter Reading and outage detection for the utility. Sure the bit-rate may vary, but so does ATM-VBR traffic.
The company providing the ongoing network operations support on the data side, as well as the customer support has been in the Internet business for nearly 10 years, and they have put ISPs in business using DSL, Cable Modem, and Fixed Wireless as well. They also are in the budget on a per-user per-month basis.
As for the ROI, Manassas forecasts over $4 million in income to the city over the next 3 years. Not bad for an initial investment of installing the equipment. I hear they can install 4 repeaters per hour.
So please quit with the inane Enron comparisons, you played your hand out. | |
| | | | | Re: let the adults handle the business model You obviously have confidential access with this deployment, including its financials. Something tells me that this is how you are funded and perhaps should disclaim that you are responsible for Public Relations on internet forums on the behalf of the BPL industry. There is definitely lots of catchup work to do in this area. People in the BPL camp tend to be funded and are shortlived on this forum.
I will remind you that the power utility industry does not have a clean record with Enron and do not consider my allusion silly whatsoever. This onus is on you guys to clean up from previous screw ups and not cause more. Your BPL investors will certainly be on the lookout for past behaviours and ensure that your solution is both technically and financially sound. Yes that is adult work. | |
| | | | | | Re: let the adults handle the business model Your claims that I'm funded for PR, are as wild and baseless, as your bogus Enron comparisons. You obviously don't understand the difference between municipal utilities like City of Manassas Department of Public Works and the Enrons and PG&Es of the world. I guess one power company is as bad as the next in your overgeneralized worldview.
Something tells me that you have no debate-worthy response to the substance of my post, thus you have resorted to the tried and true tactic of ad hominem attacks, vilify and attempt to discredit the messenger. | |
| | | | |
1 edit | Re: let the adults handle the business model I am surprised you took offense in me calling your source of funding. Is not the BPL industry honourable with nothing to hide? And do they not have people active on internet forums where investors get the full story? Your posting was probably the closest one I have seen from that camp. Unless your "ad hominem" reference flags you from the legal profession here for future business development purposes.
By the way, you are the one that *first* asked for "adults" to handle the business model, which was really not kind of your part either, certainly if you do not know my credentials. Investors will not want to be treated that way either.
If you are not funded by the BPL industry, I command you for looking after the public good and educating the BPL investors at your own expenses. If BPL is in fact technically and financially sound (note that I was actually favorable to the "BPL camp" back in June!), your industry simply needs to prove it in order to draw investors. That is called due diligence and am glad that we have learnt this lesson from the Enron. | |
| | | | | | |
 TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
1 edit | Re: Solid tech, Solid revenue model said by proBPLguy:
That said, BPL is only an interim solution until FTTH is available. The idea of a massive federal program is stupid. Broadband is being deployed by the municipalities in rural areas, just as the power grid was in the 1930s. No giant (wasteful) federal government program was required then, and none is required now.
Oh my "let the adults handle things". Ok my son let the MA in History give you a lesson on the facts of "nothing needed in the 1930's" Remember the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Federal support for the Establishment of Rural Electric Associations. Without New Deal help from FDR in the 1930's most of this deployment would have taken many years longer then it did. As for your financial arrangements I have been reading about them on the financial sites. I will not post them here I will let CheeseWare do that. Have at it CheeseWare;)
--
Remember when hacking a loogy it comes not so much from the lungs but from the soul. | |
| | | | | Re: let the adults handle the business model I wholly agree. Only the UK study mentions the equipment manufacturer, and Main.net interferes about as much as the halogen shop-lights from my reading.
Of course the proof, as always, will be in the pudding. | |
| | | | | Re: let the adults handle the business model said by proBPLguy:
I wholly agree. Only the UK study mentions the equipment manufacturer, and Main.net interferes about as much as the halogen shop-lights from my reading.
Of course the proof, as always, will be in the pudding.
The list of locations “cursed” with Main.Net systems is here;
»www.mainnet-plc.com/plc.htm
It includes Linz (closed due to interference levels 10,000 times the permitted level).
All four German cities with BPL.
So, three different countries, three different respected organizations, one manufacturer and one conclusion – BPL is a polluter of the spectrum. | |
|
| | | So much for the Austrian ARRL Looks as if OVSV claims may not be true. Possibly libelous.
Speed-Web disclaims press attacks by Austrian radio amateurs: Commercial Powerline Communications Roll-Out in Linz remains active.
Linz, January 14th 2004 – The Speed-Web Consulting GmbH management together with LINZ AG disclaim the recent press attacks stating that the Austrian authorities would have stopped their commercial Powerline Communications Roll-Out in Linz, Austria, by injunction. Press articles providing this misleading information had been launched by the Austrian Amateur Transmitter Federation.
Fact is that there has never been any injunction by Austrian authorities against the Powerline operator in Linz, although that the Austrian radio amateurs are doing their best by filing undue interference complains. Of course, if there should be any actual, harmful and officially proven interference case caused by Powerline Communications, mitigation measures will solve this very case at that specific location in the concerned frequency. As the Powerline equipment in operation has been CE certified, a complete switch-off injunction as reported by the radio amateurs would be both, unreal and illegal. LINZ AG is currently suing the Austrian Amateur Transmitter Federation as well as its president personally.
Speed-Web Consulting GmbH is a joined venture between LINZ AG and Power PLUS Communications AG, Mannheim, Germany. Since the successful introduction of Speed-Web, the commercial Powerline Roll-Out in Linz, in May 2002 and the recent foundation of the Speed-Web Consulting GmbH, LINZ AG has made an important step toward technology leadership in Austria. The business concept of Speed-Web Consulting GmbH is to successfully market the new Powerline-Carrier-Technology (PLC) in Austria. The Speed-Web Consulting GmbH also offers Consulting services and System solutions. | |
|
| | said by proBPLguy:
I wonder if anyone cares that the Main.net tech has been certified as Part 15 compliant by an FCC accredited laboratory in actual field conditions.
I might find it something more than un-noteworthy if it was reflected in the FCC ID database.
There's a Main.net press release from way back in April 2003 "announcing" the compliance
of Main.net's system with Part 15 »www.powerline-plc.com/newsreleas···rt15.pdf
Yet, six months later and the only product an Equipment Authorization search »gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/ea···arch.cfm returns for "Main.net" is an In-home unit, not their Access unit(s). Especially intriguing since the OET database does contain Grant Dates as recent as yesterday (01/13/2004). 
Inquiring minds... | |
| | | In thinking about the title of your post, how is this "solid tech"? Looking at this objectively, you have a system that attempts to carry high frequency radio energy on a medium that was never meant to carry such frequencies. In fact, it naturally radiates them into the atmosphere like an antenna. You have a medium that is unshielded and is a "hostile" environment with changing, unstable or unpredictable loads, non-linear connections, and lethal voltages. Powerlines also have lots of inherent electrical noise to deal with. And then to top it off, the frequencies used are in the same spectrum as numerous licensed services. How can this be considered solid technology ?
I go into this a bit more in depth in my FAQ here »www.qrpis.org/~k3ng/bpl.html .
I won't attempt to debate the "solid revenue model" as I'm getting out of my area of expertise, but I'd be curious to see how this works in rural areas as BPL proponents claim. My gut says not enough customers, too much cost in repeaters and backhauling everything. Any models you can provide would be helpful.
BPL is going to go where the revenue is, but that's where all the Cable and DSL is deployed already. It's an uphill battle from day one competing with these technologies. | |
| W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT | > For all the hysteria and overreaction on this thread, I
> wonder if anyone cares that the Main.net tech has been
> certified as Part 15 compliant by an FCC accredited
> laboratory in actual field conditions.
I have seen the Certification data on the FCC web site and believe it to be reasonable. It was tested as a Class B computing device. Under Part 15 rules, its function as a carrier-current device is subject to Verification, not Certification or a DoC, so the amount of RF emissions in its intended spectrum is tested only by the manufacturer. I note broad gaping holes in the spectrum tested for the Certification report, for both conducted and radiated emissions. This is not "hanky panky," but it is signficant to note that the carrier-current radiated emissions are not part of that testing.
> The technology simply isn't that expensive to deploy and
> maintain. Once Manassas is live, and point sources of RF
> leakage are plugged, interference will be within FCC
> limits, no better or worse than garage door openers and
> baby monitors.
First, power lines are not point sources of emissions. That BPL-industry claim is among the more technically flawed of all. This is ESPECIALLY true the way they feed the MV lines, by clamping an inductive coupler on one of the phases and feeding it in the middle. EZNEC modeling of a power line fed in any fashion shows that, although the emissions are generally higher at the point where they are fed, they drop off at 20log(distance ratio) going away from the lines, and they diminish very slowly as one goes along the line.
And comparing BPL emissions to things like baby monitors is comparing apples and oranges. A baby monitor emits on only a single frequency. BPL makes continuous use of spectrum over tens of MHz in some cases, and as these systems deploy, it is quite likely that the systems will run muliple spectrum blocks simultaneously, to increase the amount of bandwidth available to users. A baby monitor has a local interference potential on its single frequency, and it uses a part of the spectrum that is pretty much set aside for unlicensed devices. BPL does not have a local interference potential; it will be built as large as entire communities -- or larger.
The bottom line is found in the FCC regulations themselves. On HF, BPL is permitted to generate a nearby field strength of 30 uV/m 30 meters from the source. It does so continuously across spectrum and in entire neighborhoods or communities. When a nearby antenna is placed in a 30 uV/m field, the amount of signal it will pick up is going to be around -85 dBW or so, depending on the frequency, the gain of the antenna and distances involved. This is a very strong signal level and it masks all but the strongest signals heard on the HF or low VHF spectrum it uses.
In Briarcliff Manor, NY, ARRL's video shows a mobile HF reciever being tuned through several MHz as the operator drove down about a mile of line, to a point well outside the trial area. That testing clearly shows that the interfernce potential of BPL is more than the current spate of devices regulated by Part 15. These results are documented at:
»www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc#video
The reports of a number of amateurs who did testing in the BPL trial areas are listed at:
»www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/hyperlin···#reports
There are two similar issues that provide evidence that confirms the interference potential of BPL. In the "government" filings listed at:
»www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/hyperlinks.html
is a report by ARINC that reported that a carrier-current device operating on 3.013 MHz caused harmful interference to their facility miles away. This, too, was a "legal" device, operating on a single frequency. The FCC never was able to resolve the interference for them, so they abandoned the use of that spectrum.
The FCC has also been writing letters to electric utility companies, requiring them to correct interfernce caused by things like noisy insulators and the like. Those HAVE solutions, yet in some cases, they have dragged on for years. Clearly, lines that are not shielded and balanced cannot have their "leaks" corrected from signals that are intentionally put on those lines. "Conventional" power-line noise is often heard for miles along a line. For a good example, drive down the roads with your AM radio tuned to an unused station and tell me over what distance you hear most of the "leaks." The AM listeners in those areas are being affected, BTW; they just don't know better and probably listen on FM instead.
Ed Hare, W1RFI | |
| | | | Re: Solid tech, Solid revenue model In case anyone is wondering who Ed Hare is . . .
Ed is to radio what Eric Clapton is to rock music, Ed knows more about interference issues and the underlying electromagnetic theory than almost anyone else.
And certainly a lot more than a lawyer representing a failed technology who claims that he is satisfied etc. | |
| | | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Re: Solid tech, Solid revenue model All you have to do is look at Ed's call W1RFI that says it all (RFI= Radio Frequency Interference)
--
Remember when hacking a loogy it comes not so much from the lungs but from the soul. | |
| | | | | I love how using one Latin term makes me a lawyer. That was sure easier than passing a state bar exam.  | |
|
 whizkid3Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY
kudos:8 | ProBPLGuy,
welcome, new member, to www.broadbandreports.com. quote:
Also its "accepted" not "excepted" for the guy in Wyoming.
As far as 'Adults' go, they usually don't go around correcting other's spelling mistakes. Perhaps you should read the new user agreement you agreed to when joining; read the forum rules; and learn common courtesies to use when posting here.
Of course, judging from your posts so far, you are here for only one reason. I guess if pointing out spelling mistakes of those against BPL helps your arguments, then you see it as justified?
Whose payroll are you on, anyway? | |
| | | | Re: Solid tech, Solid revenue model NOT proBPLguy is just like BPL – a one day wonder that vanished when the real questions were asked.
The interference case is totally proven beyond any or all reasonable doubt. All that is left is for the regulators to put away the cheerleader’s uniforms and regulate like the folks in Austria and many other countries have done.
Internet access can be delivered to anyone with a phone or cable connection, wireless in many different forms can also provide a “third wire”. The only barrier is the failure of the FCC to require monopolies to provide universal access. | |
| | | | | Re: Solid tech, Solid revenue model NOT Looks like the radio guys in Austria have egg all over their face. One day wonder? If my few posts last week made for exciting discussion, great!
Austria has NOT shut down BPL, despite wild claims to the contrary. | |
| | | | N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Solid tech, Solid revenue model NOT Please post a link for your information. For all we know you made it up! | |
| | | | | |
| | | Re: Solid tech, Solid revenue model Give me a break! Spelling mistake? I guess if two words sound the same than to use them interchangeably is a spelling error? Please.... | |
|
| |
|
