 TXTigermanMonopolies Kill
join:2000-12-21
Beeville, TX | They Got It Right For Once! Bravo to the FCC! Just when I think they don't care about consumers they come along and prove me wrong.
This is a great thing for the rural customer. It's good to see that the commission didn't buy into all of that "the sky is falling!" BS being put out.
--
If you think that's funny, wait until you see the BILL! |
|
|
|
 Tursiops_GTechnoidPremium,MVM
join:2002-02-06
Norwalk, CT
1 edit | IMHO, BPL is a disaster in the making... 
Unless the entire BPL power grid is located UNDERGROUND (where RF signal emission is effectively shielded), you'll most likely have interference problems with critical emergency service communications (fire, ambulance, police, etc.)...
Would YOU want to be an accident victim in an Ambulance, on the way to the E.R., and the EMTs can't communicate with the Trauma Center because of all of the RFI spewed from the local (above ground) BPL service?
- Tursiops_G.
--
If at first You don't succeed... Use a Bigger Hammer! |
|
| reply to TXTigerman
From one of your other posts in another article:
I get tired of these piss poor "solutions" for rural customers. Nobody wants to pay nearly $1000 to install a slow, clunky, and lagged connection. If satellite were a horse, someone would have shot it four years ago.
Ironically, no utility will want to pay thousands in backhaul and repeater cost to bring BPL to a couple rural customers, and BPL is a worse solution than satellite. They've been trying to get BPL to work somewhere for five or six years. If using RF on an unshielded conductor isn't piss poor, I don't know what is. If you look at a BPL system, every component is trying to get around the inherent problem of the medium not being able to carry the frequencies in the first place.
All rural customers already have copper pairs going to their homes for phone service. Why hasn't anyone extended DSL out to them, because it's certainly technically feasible? They answer is plain and simple - it's not profitable. It's the same with BPL. But once again, broadband hype is taken hook, line, and sinker and you're going to be disappointed again.
But why am I responding to you? You always do one trolling post, never provide any supporting information, and promptly disappear until the next BPL article. |
|
TXTigermanMonopolies Kill
join:2000-12-21
Beeville, TX | said by rf_engineer:
But why am I responding to you? You always do one trolling post, never provide any supporting information, and promptly disappear until the next BPL article.
Considering that I've been here for over three years, and I have contributed to this site both monetarily, and with content, and you seem to have registered with the sole purpose of pooh-poohing BPL, who the troll is is debatable.
--
If you think that's funny, wait until you see the BILL! |
|
| said by TXTigerman:
said by rf_engineer:
But why am I responding to you? You always do one trolling post, never provide any supporting information, and promptly disappear until the next BPL article.
Considering that I've been here for over three years, and I have contributed to this site both monetarily, and with content, and you seem to have registered with the sole purpose of pooh-poohing BPL, who the troll is is debatable.
I'm not intending on sinking into an ad hominem flamefest, but in the debate over BPL you've contributed little recently, as far as I can tell. I've posted to other non-BPL articles on BBR where appropriate, but I tend to comment on things I know a lot about, unlike the majority of BPL cheerleaders here. There's only so much whining one can do about ILECs and lousy broadband service, and frankly those issues really don't interest me. So I don't contribute garbage or "me too" posts to articles, wrecking signal to noise ratios.
I contribute to BBR monetary indirectly with site traffic from people reading my posts, most of which have technical content and valid arguments (this one being an exception) and actually contribute something to the discussion at hand. Sorry, but I'm not interested in buying animated icons for next to my name.
If this forum was limited to people who bought things here or three year veterans, it would be rather boring with mostly "When can I get it?" posts with little or no technical information beyond download speeds. But I digress.
Do you have any evidence or information to support that BPL is a good thing for rural customers as you say? How does the FCC make such a seemingly good decision in your opinion amid such a misguided administration ? |
|
| reply to TXTigerman
said by TXTigerman:
This is a great thing for the rural customer. It's good to see that the commission didn't buy into all of that "the sky is falling!" BS being put out.
BPL is a useless technology for rural areas
The bogus claim that BPL is suitable choice for rural deployment is one of the many lies propagated by the BPL lobbyists. The BPL strategy is to get the FCC to allow the high levels of interference / pollution as the FCC is focused on getting broadband to communities that don’t have it.
In reality, if the BPL lobbyists succeed, they will abandon the rural areas and immediately focus on the wealthy suburban markets that are profitable and already have cable and DSL.
DSL can work out to about ~ 16,000 feet from the central office. BPL can only go 2,000 feet from the BPL equivalent of a DSLAM, then it needs an expensive repeater installed by an linesman trained to work with 11,000 volt cables. So for a 16,000 foot run 8 BPL repeaters are needed.
At the customer’s pole transformer a bridge needs to be installed to couple the signals from the 11,000 volt line to your 110 volt line, if this bridge fails, (say from a lightning strike) you will have 11,000 volts on all of your outlets.
However the math is worked, there is no way the power companies can implement this vast array of expensive equipment in rural areas with any hope of meeting the projected pricing.
The existing DSL broadband technology is proven and could be provided to almost everyone who has a phone, the barriers are political not technical.
The solution to universal broadband lies in ensuring the phone companies serve all of their customers equally.
BPL is a broken technology that is a complete distraction to the objective of universal broadband. |
|
 Balzer
join:2000-12-18
Owasso, OK
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to TXTigerman
said by TXTigerman:
said by rf_engineer:
But why am I responding to you? You always do one trolling post, never provide any supporting information, and promptly disappear until the next BPL article.
Considering that I've been here for over three years, and I have contributed to this site both monetarily, and with content, and you seem to have registered with the sole purpose of pooh-poohing BPL, who the troll is is debatable.
Trolls provide no facts! He has bent over backwards to provide everyone here the the facts. You have been asked several times to give the data to back up your statements and have provided none. Now I will ask you again to provide the data that will back you up. I have an open mind! Can you can show me real live data that bpl won't interfere with "ANY RADIO SERVICE"! I didn't say Ham radio I stated any radio service! I want to see the data, not some webpage from a bpl vendor.
I know that you don't have any! That's the point!
--
Televangelists are The Pro Wrestlers of religion! |
|
| Re: They Got It Right For Once! - NOT Q. What do you call a serial Troll?
A. Stroll!!!
»I've said it before.... |
|
 AD7BKPremium
join:2000-03-23
Havre, MT
 ·3Rivers Communic..
| reply to TXTigerman
Re: They Got It Right For Once! (Not directed at anyone just a scenario)
Ok sure lets implement BPL but if your neighbor is a Cb er, or a ham op expect your connection to be dropped every time they key-up. You can complain to the FCC but they will tell you PART 95 (CB) and PART 97 (Ham) services are protected from the PART 15 device and there is NOTHING they can do. Sure you can tear their antenna down or show up to their house threating them with a sound thrashing because you cant get your mail or mp3 or adult stuff off the net because the connection drops. You will end up in jail. BPL is a bad technology waiting to die. UNLESS they use 5GHz band there is absolutely no way to prevent interference to MF-HF-VHF spectrum or to interferences to LICENSED services on that spectrum. You see at 5GHz there is a lot less chance (little to none) of interference from LICENSED services or from the PART 15 devices.
(Directed to TXTigerman)
Obviously you are not a HAM operator or use a CB radio and you rather troll those who are concerned about it. If you cant get broadband out there and you want broadband. MOVE or pay a lot of money to get a T-1. BPL wont be your savior. BPL will be around for a year tops and then it will be stopped due to interference.
You will see. I know times have to change but they should spend more money to implement BPL at the 5GHz range. Sure it will cost a lot more BUT it can be implemented without harmful interference to any of the lower bands AND many hams support the 5GHz version.
You don't like the fact that the Hams are moaning about it ok do you listen to Shortwave broadcast? You wont hear it do you get TV Channels 2-5 off the air? You won't be able to due to BPL. So think about it. 2-80MHz is NOT the place for BPL
David
--
The following statement is true...The Proceeding statement was false!!--George Carlin |
|
