Topmounter
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to LoneGreyWolf
Re: BPL Infatuation Continues
Someone help me out here:
Where is it said/proved that BPL is going to be viable in low density, rural environments?
I know the power lines are already in place in rural environments, but so are the telephone lines in most places. |
|
LoneGreyWolf
Premium
join:2002-09-09
Bath, NY
clubs: 
1 edit | said by Topmounter  :
Someone help me out here:
Where is it said/proved that BPL is going to be viable in low density, rural environments? I know the power lines are already in place in rural environments, but so are the telephone lines in most places. It may or may not be, it still has to be proven and we will have to wait and see. I believe I said that, did I not? It's still a hope for us rural people, where the telcos and cable companies will not deploy. It's still a chance for us to come out of the stone age so to speak when it comes to the internet. It may not be the latest and greatest speeds, but I would be happy with a 500k-1meg connection. It's much much better than my 26.4k connection now and would make a world of difference. Trust me, doing research for projects and essays for college is hell on a 26.4k connection. What should take me a few hours a night takes me much much longer to do. Pages constantly time out, it takes minutes for pages to come up that don't time out. That's not even duting peak times when other college students are hitting the same data bases.
I'm happy that most of you have broadband, but don't have the attitude of just because I have it, it doesn't matter to me if you get it. You should hope that everyone can get it and not put down those who don't have it. Nor should you want to see technology like BPL fail, when it can be improved upon. So it fails, instead of saying well that's it, it should be tried again and improved upon to make it play nice. I'm sure it can be done, but don't kill it before it has a real chance to improve. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by LoneGreyWolf :I'm happy that most of you have broadband, but don't have the attitude of just because I have it, it doesn't matter to me if you get it. You should hope that everyone can get it and not put down those who don't have it. Nor should you want to see technology like BPL fail, when it can be improved upon. So it fails, instead of saying well that's it, it should be tried again and improved upon to make it play nice. I'm sure it can be done, but don't kill it before it has a real chance to improve. Have you even read any of the posts abot this?
The MAIN complaint is the INTERFERENCE issues that BPL has. This has NOTHING to do with denying anyone broadband. It has everything to do with the technology behind it.
The BPL people are now pushing one of two mantras:
1) There is no interference (already proven wrong many times over.)
2) Ham radio should be killed (rantings of people who otherwise have no other argument.)
Also, the rural argument doesn't hold water. If it was profitable, DSL and/or cable would already be there. The only way they would be there, in most cases, would be government regulations like those on the telcos. |
|
zoom314
Superman
Premium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA
| There is one BPL that is ok, It was endorsed by the ARRL as far as I've read, Anything else would not be good for anything and No I can't remember what It was[sorry]:(, But the ARRL would know I'd think.:D
--
Firefox forever!
»zoom314.blogspot.com/
»mysite.verizon.net/zoom314/ |
|
LoneGreyWolf
Premium
join:2002-09-09
Bath, NY
clubs:
| reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy :said by LoneGreyWolf :I'm happy that most of you have broadband, but don't have the attitude of just because I have it, it doesn't matter to me if you get it. You should hope that everyone can get it and not put down those who don't have it. Nor should you want to see technology like BPL fail, when it can be improved upon. So it fails, instead of saying well that's it, it should be tried again and improved upon to make it play nice. I'm sure it can be done, but don't kill it before it has a real chance to improve. Have you even read any of the posts abot this? The MAIN complaint is the INTERFERENCE issues that BPL has. This has NOTHING to do with denying anyone broadband. It has everything to do with the technology behind it. The BPL people are now pushing one of two mantras: 1) There is no interference (already proven wrong many times over.) 2) Ham radio should be killed (rantings of people who otherwise have no other argument.) Also, the rural argument doesn't hold water. If it was profitable, DSL and/or cable would already be there. The only way they would be there, in most cases, would be government regulations like those on the telcos. Have you read what I wrote? I said to wait and work with it so that it will play nice with things such as Ham radio and emergency freqs. I have never once said that Ham should be killed. I am not a ham operator, but I am the type of person that doesn't think anyones rights to do something legal should be trampled. I am an EMT and a firefighter and rely on my portable radio, Minitor pager and a scanner to here what's going on and when I need to get to a call. I don't want intereference either, but I am sure BPL can be made so that there is no intereference, but most of you don't want to give it that chance. That's where my issue is with you all. Your not giving it a chance and just saying kill it before improvements can be made. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by LoneGreyWolf :Have you read what I wrote? I said to wait and work with it so that it will play nice with things such as Ham radio and emergency freqs. I have never once said that Ham should be killed. I am not a ham operator, but I am the type of person that doesn't think anyones rights to do something legal should be trampled. I am an EMT and a firefighter and rely on my portable radio, Minitor pager and a scanner to here what's going on and when I need to get to a call. I don't want intereference either, but I am sure BPL can be made so that there is no intereference, but most of you don't want to give it that chance. That's where my issue is with you all. Your not giving it a chance and just saying kill it before improvements can be made. If you read another post I made concerning the Potomac, MD. trial, you would noticed it did notch out the Ham bands. HOWEVER, you can only notch so much. Other licensed services would be affected.
You Minitor pager might run in the VHF-Lo band (most likely in the 39MHz area.) This area is affected by the one BPL system out there (it hits almost everything from 2MHz to 80MHz.) Now, if you notch one area, you will still have to notch other areas. Problem is you can't mitigate everywhere. Someone has to suffer. You radio might not be affected if it is in the VHF-Hi area (around 150MHz.)
As for public safety frequencies, most urban areas are going to a trunking system using 800MHz. (Look what happened to Nextel in this arena.) Who is to say the BPL folks can't use the VHF-Lo region since their argument would be for public safety to upgrade to a trunking system.
Now, the Corridor system (I believe) is the one that poses the least amount of interference using Wi-Fi as part of the connection. The older Ambient technology is the big pollutor. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | reply to zoom314
You are thinking of the Corridor sstem.
Seems interesting but I want to see the price difference in deployment. |
|
LoneGreyWolf
Premium
join:2002-09-09
Bath, NY
clubs:
| reply to moonpuppy
"you Minitor pager might run in the VHF-Lo band (most likely in the 39MHz area."
Actually, we run on highband here for the most part, but when tones go out, they are usually put out on both high and low band. I just don't get to hear the low band tone outs.
I just want to see BPL tested until it can't be tested anymore. I don't want to see it killed before it's run through every test out there. I am sure that improvements can be made and I want it to have that chance.
Your right, I will never see DSL or cable where I live, but there is a chance that BPL can come here. The co-op that provides my electrice is going to a auto read system and will need to upgrade it's wiring anyways from what they have said. Who's to say that as they are upgrading, they don't put in wires capable of carrying BPL? |
|
zoom314
Superman
Premium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA
| reply to moonpuppy
Thanks, Moonpuppy, I knew someone here would know about It, If BPL wants to grow and survive to Me It's so far the only one to really shine, Of course with research You'd think there might be other forms of BPL that would work too. But who knows.:D
--
Firefox forever!
»zoom314.blogspot.com/
»mysite.verizon.net/zoom314/ |
|
N3EVL
join:2004-12-13
Shrewsbury, MA
| reply to LoneGreyWolf
Your desire to see BPL tested and proven (or not) is generally commendable however, it is not unreasonable that those potentially affected by interference should be exceptionally suspicious of the activities of the BPL industry. Some things to consider concerning this debate:
-The BPL industry does not have a good track record in being up-front about the interference issue having been in denial for a long while, then claiming the interference which was measured has now magically been tamed. This aspect of the debate rages on.
-The FCC (at least the politicos within the FCC) appeared to jump on this technology prematurely and without due dilligence. Rather than take a hands-off wait and see approach or even attempt to enforce existing Part 15 rules, they seem to have gone out of their way to relax the rules, even ignoring their own technical findings. Understandably, this does not sit well with many!
-The news media has been lacking in dilligence in reporting both sides of this issue; many news items on the subject of BPL are little more than a restatement of comments made by representatives of the BPL industry.
-There are differences between the different BPL implementations that are often glossed over. The primary concern is with interference to HF by systems that operate below 30MHz. Those systems that operate in the low VHF range appear to be more benign. Those that operate in the Microwave range appear not to have any ill effects. The remainder are in-building systems that do not use overhead power lines or are some hybrid system that are not really BPL at all. It would be refreshing if those without current broadband options and desirous of having BPL (or even the FCC!) would take the time to familiarize themselves with these options and campaign for the more well-behaved variants - maybe they can have what they desire without destroying something valuable in the process. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to LoneGreyWolf
said by LoneGreyWolf :I just want to see BPL tested until it can't be tested anymore. I don't want to see it killed before it's run through every test out there. I am sure that improvements can be made and I want it to have that chance. The facts are it has been tested, here in this country and overseas. Each time, it has come to the same conclusion. There is interference. No ifs, ands or buts about it. The BPL system pushed by Ambient is the worst one. Now, the Corridor system is much friendlier system.
Want to find out how the BPL companies work?
Read this:
»Getting BPL to Work
Which became this:
»Drawing the Line
As for you getting BPL, meter reading is a money saving venture for the local energy co-op. BPL requires a bit more infrastructure than simple meter reading. |
|
