Followup comments:  vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD | I think its a good idea More competition never hurt anyone, except for monoplies. | |
|  | 
MRNVGVUP
join:2003-04-12
Sharon, PA | Re: I think its a good idea Hear hear! | |
| 
oroper
Patriots Rule
join:2004-06-01
Beverly, MA |  Agree
| |
| 
mamoon
@fdn.com |  The real reason
| |
| |
Nickker0322
@comcast.net | Re: The real reason plus, every room has an electrical outlet. Not every room has a cable outlet or phone outlet, at least for older homes. So it might seem easier for older home owners just to use the pre-existing outlets. | |
| | |
anon name
@80.44.x.x | Re: The real reason my understanding of this technology is that it is terminated at your meter. the signal is not transmitted through your internal home wiring. | |
| RafS
join:2003-03-06
New York, NY
|  You ever used this stuff at your house?
| |
| damox
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Olympia, WA
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| Promising Potential While the jury is still out on this one, it would seem that Powerline Broadband presents some interesting possibilities. I for one am rooting for this to succeed. More competition is obviously better for consumers. Who knows, some day, Powerline Broadband could be the industry leader!
--
DAMOX Proud to be a member of Team Discovery | |
|
Anon_Blah_Blah_Blah
@rr.com
| I hope BPL fails If everyone would spend more time raking the Telco's over the coals for trying to extract every last cent from our 100 year old dead telecom network than they were trying to fix BPL, we all might have seen fiber by now.
This video is a pretty vivid demonstration of what happens to RF (radio frequency) in the presense of a BPL injector.
»www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories···-web.mpg
Warning, it is large (18MB). | |
| | mwf
join:2000-11-26
Granite Quarry, NC | Re: I hope BPL fails Gee, that was an objective video. | |
| | | 
53059959
Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone | Re: I hope BPL fails so throw that antique crap away and start broadcasting on the internet. | |
| | | | 
JAAulde
yum yum yum yum yum
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-09
Hagerstown, MD
| Re: I hope BPL fails Tell that to the folks who roll into your town after the next major natural disaster to set up their "antique" equipment and build communication networks until the lines can be restored.
Tell that to the cop or EMT who is attempting to answer an emergency call to your house and can't communicate.
Yeah, tell it to them...
--
Will Work For Tool Points
The record shows I took the blows -And did it my way! | |
| | | |
anti-pollution
@38.117.x.x
| Pollution of the radio frequency spectrum for political purposes remains that: Pollution.
Is there are not enough cable out there?
Are there not enough phone lines?
Is there a real, overpowering reason to blatantly pollute?
I'm a former amateur radio operator who hasn't been on the air in decades, but c'mon guys. There are strong reasons why radio communications need to continue when other resources don't work, for example in disasters. And when there are no other resources, such as radio astronomy.
You begin polluting RF now, what's next? For which further political goal will it become acceptable? | |
| |
LCRJ
@speakeasy.n | Raping them over coals ??? If cable companies in canada can offer 9.0/1.0 for 39.99 and they seem to make money....you well know that every other company that sells internet is riping us off and its a known fact ! thank .. | |
|
mini me
@cebridge.net
| Broadband via powerline BAD IDEAL The whole thing aint gonna work, first of all, during T-storms lightning is attracted to powerlines more than any type of line or cable, cuz power lines carry very high voltages and MAN:) lightning sure loves that, and thats not a good ideal to have net connection through powerlines. I mean who wants their signal disrupted every time a T-storm passes and lightning strikes the lines. ITS crazy. | |
| |
HAMRADIO
@attbi.com | Re: Broadband via powerline BAD IDEAL This is a bad Idea By And will Distroy Public service in smaller areas that use frequency's used by Fire,police.
NO TO BPL YES TO WI-FI | |
| | 
BillTager
join:2000-09-20
Charlotte, NC
| Re: Broadband via powerline BAD IDEA Use common sense
Obviously, if a thunder storm or some kind of disaster throws out the power, computers wont work anyway; negating the need for any broadband; be it cable, DSL, BPL, etc. This frees up the airwaves for emergency services that depend on them. And you can't tell me that if the situation arose that required the shutdown of a BPL network, that it wouldn't be possible to do so within a limited amount of time.
--
Formerly DSLWho | |
| | | 
ssj4android
Redefining Reality
join:2002-04-14
Wyoming, MI | Re: Ham operator in favor of BPL Do you mean the need for broadband outweighs the minimal effects? | |
| |
N0RQ
@swbell.ne
| BPL causes massive radio interference. Proof: »www.arrl.org/bpl . Look for the demonstration. Look for the articles that showed why a BPL test in Iowa was cut short a week ago because of interference. Look to see why Japan, Austria, and other countries have BANNED BPL because of interference. BPL is trash "technology". | |
| | | | | Eye4got
join:2004-06-02
Lancaster, PA
| When I think about BPL, I can't see how deploying BPL ever made it as an idea. I would like to know more about what it costs to bring it to a particular area, what equipment needs to be installed (and where), and how robust it is in use. Even if it's effects on the RF spectrum were minimal, because it relies on open, unshielded transmission line, it will be subject to whatever "interference" is presented to it. If it is adaptive to radiation received in it's operating frequency range, it stands to reason that there may be circumstances where it will be rendered useless, like when I'm yakking on 20 meters while driving by.  Economics must be considered, as with any other technology. BPL will be far more expensive per user in remote areas than in dense areas, what will prevent power companies from deploying in dense areas and what incentive would they have for serving remote areas? Power companies aren't known to have the best history for resolving RF pollution issues regarding their core business of power transmission, I'm not sure I trust them to be Part 15 compliant after they spend all this money on an impractical idea, they would rather see a profit. I am sure that Part 15 hasn't been updated to meet the needs of the modern day. It was designed in a day when "interference" was a narrowband carrier, transmitted from a single point. With BPL, your point of transmission is indefinite, and wideband. Measuring effective unwanted radiation for compliance would need to take this into account. Using Part 15 to protect licensed services from interference from BPL is as unrealistic as expecting BPL to be a reliable, viable, and cost effective way of getting broadband internet to people in remote areas. If BPL was economically viable, certainly it would be moreso in the denser areas. Sheer economics say that it would be most likely to be rolled out in denser areas, and not rolled out in the areas that need broadband. The FCC of present seems to be strongly backing BPL for some reason, in spite of these things. I would like to know why that is, when better alternatives already exist that don't require more regulation (or a modification to Part 15).
If BPL was viable, why wouldn't it be encouraged as competition in areas where DSL and cable access are present? The power company would make quite a bit more profit serving those areas, and the economic reality could be similar to that for power transmission along the same wires - the more densely populated areas would help fund the coverage of the remote areas.
Point to point or point to multipoint wireless would be far cheaper (and would take less time) to implement, would certainly work better in the real world, and would cause zero interference with any existing licensed service.
»www.qsl.net/w4fal/smithchart/bpl.html
I remember hearing about cable TV companies getting interference complaints from airports, police and other public services as they had leakage problems on their coaxial (shielded) transmission lines. The cable company was required to resolve the issue in short order. Power transmission lines are unshielded, and not what you think of for the transmission of high speed data. In the trial from the weblink above, the unwanted radiation from BPL can be easily heard by an average amateur home station at a distance of a mile from the closest BPL point. This isn't proper implementation or marginal interference, yet it continues unresolved. If a cable company (or anyone else) would radiate to this degree, the FCC would come down on them hard and fast. What makes it different for the power companies?
»www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/F···ers.html
I see some unresolved issues, and some that are being blatantly ignored. I would like to see if any BPL noise problems have been resolved with success, and how they did it. If anyone has any info on any successful resolutions to BPL interference problems, please post them  so that we can see what's involved.
»www.mindspring.com/~gilliatt/bpl0401.html for some info on the Progress Energy trial, and some basic technicals.
I am trying hard to be unbiased, but I have seen BPL noise, and a NPRM to accomodate BPL. The fact that there is an NPRM means that it isn't practical for BPL to operate within the confines of Part 15. Considering that better ways already exist to get broadband internet to the areas where it doesn't exist now, and the economic and physical reality of the trials that have been happening, I don't see any reason to allow this level of pollution to our shared RF spectrum.
This guy puts it better than I can, though.
»www.silicon.com/comment/0,390247···7,00.htm | |
| | 
rwhubert
Bipolar Athlon
Premium
join:2002-07-26
Atlanta, GA
 ·CYBERONIC INTERNET..
| If you're a real amateur operator, I mean the licensed kind, you'd know that BPL causes massive interference to radio reception by blanketing all the HF bands with hash! Minimal did you say? MINIMAL? With BPL on-line, you will not be able to hear anything above the AM mediumwave broadcast band. Shorwave AM Radio reception as we know it and depend on it -- including all HF amateur bands -- will cease to exist.
Minimal? Outweighs need for broadband? Do you suffer under the delusion that no one has any use for these international broadcast bands, other than power companies that want to become ISP's (there's a frightening thought!) ?
Have you never heard of satellite dishes for rural areas? | |
| | |
Timgjr
@Dial1.Detr
| Re: Ham operator in favor of BPL I'm not a Ham operator in any sense of the term. I am, however, hard up for broadband in my area. Simply put, unfortunately, your suggestion of Satellite doesn't cut it for most users.
Most people that want broadband in rural areas need a latency less than 1000ms. Even dialup is better 250ms/ave. The travel time to/from satellite kills its flexibility and use. The ONLY person that would consider satellite is someone that would only browse the internet and.. Well... only browse..
More and more people want it for voice over ip/gaming/chatting, sharing movies, online chat with mom while in collage(Moms in rural no where). etc. Satellite is not an option for the normal, want to do it all, family.
Am I saying yay to BPL?.. Well, I'm saying yay to anything that freakin gets to my family. I'm 700ft away from an inactive remote terminal for DSL(6 miles from town), cable is at the end of my street and they've flat out said a cold day in hell is when they will consider going down my road. Wireless is all around me but a mile or more to far away and they wont be upgrading any time soon.
Ahh well, all I want is a solution, so if BPL isn't, what can you do to fix it? Other than complain that it's not good as is? Cuz short of a miracle, that’s all us rurals got for hope.
Tim | |
| | | |
rwhubert
Bipolar Athlon
Premium
join:2002-07-26
Atlanta, GA
·CYBERONIC INTERNET..
| Re: Ham operator in favor of BPL Okay, I feel your pain but I'm not sure BPL is the answer. I can understand how you'd be looking for any way to get broadband out in the country. Maybe having BPL in a rural area would not cause interference to anyone's radio reception but your own, so I would not rule it out for rural areas.
However, all other considerations aside, I'd question the motives and ability of a power company or cooperative wanting to get into the ISP biz. I think other options might be on the horizon, such as wireless with improved range and speed.
Here's another possibility for the future ... I read something either on DSLR.com or maybe it was Space.com recently about wireless via large high-altitude balloons or blimps. These could cover very large areas with a strong broadband signal. Something to think about while you wait. | |
| mhy
join:2000-08-25
Los Angeles, CA | Dopey idea Causes massive RF interference. Better plan is to string fibers. | |
|
N0RQ
@swbell.ne
| garbage technology
BPL wreaks havoc on HF communications. This includes police agencies that still use 30MHz, intercontinental airplanes (read the Boeing report), amateur "ham" radio, short-wave listeners, government HF users (including the military), etc. The ham community is banding together to fight this nonsense.
Note also that BPL RECEIVES interference, and will be hurt badly by it. One test of an amateur radio transmitter showed that a 100 watt ham signal on 3.5MHz would kill BPL for over a mile. Note that hams can use not just 100 watts, but 1500 watts legally. So, if you have other HF uses (such as hams) anywhere near BPL, the BPL will NOT work while the signal is being generated.
BPL is junk technology, and should be BANNED, just like it has been in Japan, Austria, and other countries, because of interference. The power companies should concentrate on delivering reliable electricity, not data. Please see »www.arrl.org/bpl for additional information. | |
|
|
394 /
27%
·
·