BPL: No Shortage of CriticsSo is 5Ghz the answer? ( old news - 11:17AM Tuesday Dec 30 2003) tags: wireless · hardware · alternatives · bandwidthTipped by Karl Bode  Amrad (the Amateur Radio Research and Development Corporation) is the latest group to respond to the FCC's request for feedback on broadband via power-line technology. The group, like others before them, notes there will be a serious impact on radio communications if the technology becomes widespread. Unlike others, AMRAD offers up some suggestions on how to minimize the potential impact of BPL (broadband via power-lines) in their submission (pdf file) to the FCC. The group conducted a RF Susceptibility experiment this past November on the Potomac BPL trial being conducted by Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO). Unlike previous reports that emphasize BPL's impact on radio operators and emergency communications, AMRAD also emphasizes the reverse. "From this test data, it is apparent that radio amateur operations in the test neighborhood could cause many homes to lose their Internet connection during the times when the radio amateur is transmitting," the report notes. The report offers some suggestions on how to reduce interference, including replacing unshielded Romex with commercially used BX armored cable and metal outlet boxes - something the report notes is more practically performed during construction than at a later date. The report also recommends the use of quarter-wave coaxial stubs at the wall plug to absorb energy at the interfering frequency. The BPL technology used by PEPCO comes from Current Technologies, and is one of several technologies that create significant interference problems to HF and low-VHF spectrum use between 2 and 80 MHz. Such interference problems have been the reason (along side significant cost) that a great number of BPL trials world-wide have run into trouble. The concerns about interference haven't been enough to slow many projects in the States, like the goal of wiring the entire city of Manassas, Virginia with BPL. There are some alternative BPL technologies under development, that operate primarily within the unlicensed 5 GHz ISM band. One version of the technology being developed by Corridor systems uses 216mbps capable BPL up to a point, and then connects to the end user via 802.11 wireless gear (see pdf of Corridor's BPL specs). Such BPL alternatives are currently being tested by California PG&E. However there are several technologies that either currently use, or plan to use the 5GHZ band (like 802.11a or the looming 802.11n) - so the interference battle may simply change battlefields.
Related:- Faster Wireless Transmission Speeds On The Way
- Meraki Annoys Partners, Customers
- 100Mbps Wireless By 2010
- Nokia LTE Wireless Tests Surpass 100Mbps
- Qualcomm's UMB: DOA
- Motorola Offers White Space Device For Testing
- Comcast To Deploy Femtocells
- How To Tether The 3G iPhone
|
 
Stewy85
Premium
join:2003-01-16
Sharon, WI
clubs: | Looks Good I would love to have those speeds but not at the sacrifice of ham radio.
--
0111010001110010011101010111010001101000 | |
|  | 
KF6HCD
Kindly Shut Your Noise Hole.
Premium
join:2003-01-31
Yucaipa, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Looks Good said by Stewy85 :
I would love to have those speeds but not at the sacrifice of ham radio.
"From this test data, it is apparent that radio amateur operations in the test neighborhood could cause many homes to lose their Internet connection during the times when the radio amateur is transmitting," the report notes.
It would seem from the above quote that ham radio and BPL are mutually deleterious and incompatible technologies... BPL can take out ham radio and ham radio can take out BPL packets.
5GHz is interesting, though, and I hope that this spectrum will be used instead of HF... The interference potential is much lower and much more easily mitigated.
Ham radio need not sacrificed if 5GHz BPL is utilized versus HF BPL.
All the other radio services in the HF can be saved, too!
--
I once accidentally spilled spot remover on my dog and he disappeared. You know what I hate? Indian Givers... No, I take that back. »www.folsomtech.com | |
| | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
 ·Packet8
| Re: Looks Good said by KF6HCD :
5GHz is interesting, though, and I hope that this spectrum will be used instead of HF... The interference potential is much lower and much more easily mitigated.
Ham radio need not sacrificed if 5GHz BPL is utilized versus HF BPL.
All the other radio services in the HF can be saved, too!
So wait, you are advocating knocking out everything in the 5Ghz band instead? Tell me, how is that a solution rather than just pushing this problem out of the HAM world and into another person's world ? This "solution" is going to interefere with everything from telephones to data networks and is probably why they aren't putting it in the 2.4Ghz range.
--
Male by birth... Geek by choice
The Center is where its at... | |
| | | | 
Tomek
Premium
join:2002-01-30
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
·Verizon VoiceWing
| Re: Looks Good I agree. The article didn't specify if this 5Ghz spectrum won't interfere with any 5.x Ghz devices, like Wifi(a) or new wireless phones.
BPL must find a way to limit their interference to minimum.
I wonder if BPL is causing a lot of interference in urban areas when most of the powerlines are underground.
--
There are 3200 types of people.Those who understand HEX and those who don't. | |
| | | |
KF6HCD
Kindly Shut Your Noise Hole.
Premium
join:2003-01-31
Yucaipa, CA
·Verizon FIOS
| The interference at 5GHz is of a lower power, is localized by the nature of RF energy at this frequency and is less likely to impact devices in the rest of the world. The interferences that would occur are much more easily mitigated. There are also ham allocations in this spectrum, so I am not being unfair to others. Wi-Fi at 5GHz is used mostly indoors, and less likely to be severely impacted. Besides, ISM is an unlicensed service, so there are no licensed services being taken out.
I do not advocate taking out ANYTHING at 5GHz or at any other frequency.
But this seems a better choice given the number of licensed services that already reside within HF. The number of unlicensed users in the 5GHz range is quite small in comparison.
--
I once accidentally spilled spot remover on my dog and he disappeared. You know what I hate? Indian Givers... No, I take that back. »www.folsomtech.com | |
| | | | | | | | | cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| Re: Looks Good Both of you have good arguments, however, the article states that 5 Ghz is going to be used with 802.11x devices not BPL so what you are doing is adding to the number of actively radiating devices and increasing the the potential for interference with other users in the band.
Additionally since the original BPL carrier frequencies will still be used to deliver data to the APs you have in effect increased the amount of spectrum required to deliver service to a given population.
If the cell industry operated this way we wouldn't have any data service what so ever from them as they wouldn't have enought spectrum to do it.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber | |
| | | | | | N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN
| Re: Looks Good The way I understand it, the Corridor system uses the 5GHz UN-II band down the power line and 802.11 into the home. It does not use any HF spectrum. Yes, there is other 802.11 equipment, but the 802.11 band is channelized into 6 channels. Adjacent 802.11 installations should be using different channels anyway; thus no interference at that level.
Supposedly, Corridor tested their 5Ghz system for susceptibility from a amateur transmitter and found no interference (no surprise there!)
Mainline, Ambient, Current, and all the other BPL companies use 2 to 80 MHZ on the power line. That's the part that is bad. | |
| | N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN
| The allocation at 5Ghz for UNII already takes into account different frequencies for indoor and outdoor use. Any conflicts are likely to be local in nature and can be mitigated by coordination, perhaps by the hardware itself. The bottom line is that there is more than 10 times the bandwidth for broadband up there than in the HF spectrum.
The AMRAD study adds the nail of unreliable to BPL's downside.
HF BPL is unshielded, unlicensed, unreliable and irresponsible. | |
| | | cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| Re: Looks Good Yeah, but what about 5 GHz ISM, which is what is mentioned in the article and is what cordless phones run under? There are not separate distinctions for indoor and outdoor equipment and the upper band of UNII overlaps with that of ISM.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber | |
| 
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | 5GHz == Good, but where's the fiber? BPL at 5GHz seems to be a better solution, but where's the fiber? | |
| | 
stopping-by
| Re: 5GHz == Good, but where's the fiber? Since when does BPL, "broadband via power-lines", need fiber? | |
| | |
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | Re: 5GHz == Good, but where's the fiber? I didn't say that BPL required fiber. I'm saying that while 5GHz BPL is a nice idea, I think that it's just a patch, and that fiber is the real solution to the problem. | |
| | | KB2PSM
join:2002-08-06
Long Beach, NY | I believe that the point he is making is that so much was invested in fiber as a means of high speed digital communication, but it is seldom mentioned anymore.  | |
| | cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| Not only was a lot invested in fiber, but many of the power carriers have pulled fiber along their rights of way, so using BPL as a delivery solution with wireless last mile as the article mentions is kind of a joke when they have infinitely more bandwidth using the fiber they have already pulled.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber | |
| 
cyberthugin
join:2002-03-12
Kew Gardens, NY | I agree There needs to be more testing for me to switch and with speeds like that, would make anyone switch. | |
| ParanoiaInc
join:2002-08-28
Tucker, GA | Hmm, a new form of broadband over commercial radio Well, while many of you may like your Spamradio stations, I for one do not like them. I think that most of the radio stations out there have little to offer, much the same way I feel about newspapers and the local evening news. | |
| | 
jmkraft
Essayons
Premium
join:2002-04-11
Paris, IL
1 edit | Re: Hmm, a new form of broadband over commercial radio ++Upon reflection, I do not wish to post++. | |
| | | 
VWSpeedRacer
join:2002-10-06
Essex Junction, VT
clubs: | Re: Hmm, a new form of broadband over commercial radio Good reflection - I don't think there's anything that any of us could say that would do more damage than he already has... LOL! | |
| 
Mactron
Happy 4th
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv | 5 Ghz is a nice start... The higher the frequency for BPL the better. 5 Ghz is a nice start. Trying to pull off BPL at any frequencies below microwave is going to be an interfereance disaster for everyone. Lets see, BPL at 50 Ghz sounds good.;) Lets hope 5 Ghz works out. | |
| | cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| Re: 5 Ghz is a nice start... Dude read the article, the BPL carrier frequency ain't changing, they just aren't going to put BPL in the houses. You're going to have an 802.11 access point on the pole outside your house for service.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber | |
| ld2950
join:2001-09-22
Medford, MA
| Hams Sounds like paranoia is trolling to me...You really should read up on ham radios and the services they supply my uncle was a ham operator till the day he died call letters W1PAN stop insulting the rest of us and don't reply unless you have something to add to the discussion.. | |
| | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Hams all he did was add his opinion if you feel it isn't something added then ignore it or respond in a civil manner. No need to attack him. Just becuase your an operator doesn't make every one else wrong.
--
This package does not contain a winner... | |
| | | ld2950
join:2001-09-22
Medford, MA | Re: Hams I am not attacking him....Sorry if I came off the wrong way but he shouldn't critisize ham operators by comparing them to spammers....I apologise for the rant... | |
| bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
| Solution is worse than the problem... quote:
There are some alternative BPL technologies under development, that operate primarily within the unlicensed 5 GHz ISM band. One version of the technology being developed by Corridor systems uses 216mbps capable BPL up to a point, and then connects to the end user via 802.11 wireless gear (see pdf of Corridor's BPL specs). Such BPL alternatives are currently being tested by California PG&E. However there are several technologies that either currently use, or plan to use the 5GHZ band (like 802.11a or the looming 802.11n) - so the interference battle may simply change battlefields.
This "solution" of using the 5Ghz band is just as bad as the current problem... So now they are screwing up another portion of the spectrum to save the HAM spectrum?! I love it. This BPL stuff is turning out to be a radio frequencies shell game of sorts... All I can say is that better stay OUT of the 5Ghz range.
--
Male by birth... Geek by choice
The Center is where its at... | |
| | cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA | Re: Solution is worse than the problem... No, actually they are going to be using both the original spectrum and the 5 Ghz spectrum, taking up even more spectrum than originally planned.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber | |
| | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
| Re: Solution is worse than the problem... said by cmaenginsb :
No, actually they are going to be using both the original spectrum and the 5 Ghz spectrum, taking up even more spectrum than originally planned.
That's even better...  Must have missed that part in the article.
--
Male by birth... Geek by choice
The Center is where its at... | |
| | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
| Re: Solution is worse than the problem... said by rf_engineer :
It's funny though how everyone is for BPL until it comes into their radio spectrum neighborhood. Not in my backyard, you say ?
Actually, I was never really "pro-BPL" due to the interference issues. My concern is less with HAM and with more mission critical devices and uses of the impacted frequencies. However, I don't think moving the interference issues to another spectrum (5ghz) and one that is going to be heavily used is a solution. A solution would be to find a range that is vacant and use it.
--
Male by birth... Geek by choice
The Center is where its at... | |
| | | | 
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: Solution is worse than the problem... said by bmn :
said by rf_engineer :
It's funny though how everyone is for BPL until it comes into their radio spectrum neighborhood. Not in my backyard, you say ?
Actually, I was never really "pro-BPL" due to the interference issues. My concern is less with HAM and with more mission critical devices and uses of the impacted frequencies. However, I don't think moving the interference issues to another spectrum (5ghz) and one that is going to be heavily used is a solution. A solution would be to find a range that is vacant and use it.
Good point, but that's the kicker, finding vacant spectrum. If BPL interests actually tried to get a real 80 Mhz wide allocation in HF/VHF, they'd be laughed out of Washington. I have often said before that we could perhaps look for a 1 Mhz chunk for BPL. This would be able to support the drops to houses at maybe a 500 kbs rate, but wouldn't be sufficient for the main backhaul. But 2.4 and 5 Ghz is just so much better suited for this, either as a wireless medium or surface propagated on the line (like Corridor). Part 15 rules in the HF band where never meant to support wideband uses in a large geographical area like BPL. On the contrary, it was to support small narrowband consumer devices that occasionally transmit and at most would be a minor occasional nuisance to licensed users in the band. Part 15 in 2.4 and 5 Ghz land, though, allows much higher radiated power levels. This is why the band is ideal for unlicensed WISP use. Also, the 5 Ghz band is also known as UNII or the Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure band, created during the Clinton/Gore administration. It was created and built from the ground up with such applications in mind, and it was recently expanded. BPL type applications really belong there, not in worldwide communications spectrum. But good luck getting a free and clear 80 Mhz chunk in any microwave bands.
Another thing to consider is that comparing the interference issues in the HF spectrum versus the interference that would be present to incumbent users at 5 Ghz is like comparing apples and oranges. Current devices at 5 Ghz are much like wideband spread spectrum or OFDM BPL devices. HF on the other hand is typically narrowband uses with very sensitive receivers. 5 Ghz can't propagate across the globe like HF, therefore interference effects are very localized. It's also much easier to create highly directional antennas to avoid interference, such as in a WISP or WLAN application. HF directional antennas with the equivalent directionality are measured in acres or even square miles !
The mission criticality that you refer to is really in the eye of the beholder. Many Internet citizens consider 2.4 and 5 Ghz "mission critical" because they're aware of it and use it, as do WISPs. HF radio spectrum is "mission critical" for several government services and international entities. Even truckers would consider 27 Mhz (CB) mission critical when trying to get directions in an unfamiliar town, or calling for emergency help. You'll find that most any chunk of spectrum has users which depend on it, so don't dismiss Ham or HF use in general as not being mission critical.
BTW, "Ham" is not an acronym so it's not really proper to refer to it as "HAM" | |
| | | | cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| This makes no difference While this article makes an interesting point about HAM radio interfering with BPL as well as vice versa.
As the study points out, BPL is just as subject to interference as the interference it puts out itself. That means using some intermediate technology for the last mile still doesn't fix anything. And 5Ghz, what a joke, there are huge LOS limitations on this as anyone who's tried and 802.11a setup can attest to. Not to mention you now have cordless phones and other devices running on this band ready to interfere. Finally you have WISPs also using this band.
Personally I think if the money and time wasted in some of these "technologies" was used to improve infrastructure in the last mile everyone would have decent speeds. By the time BPL becomes accepted, the power companies will find out it would have been cheaper to run fiber to every house and offer phone and TV service as well. (Why not they have the rights of way)
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber | |
| |
See 18 replies to this post | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | When? When will people learn that the only thing that is important in this world is broadband? | |
| |
KF6HCD
Kindly Shut Your Noise Hole.
Premium
join:2003-01-31
Yucaipa, CA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: When? said by Maxo :
When will people learn that the only thing that is important in this world is broadband?
No, the only thing that is important in this world is BBR!
That and a big red fire truck for Christmas.
--
I once accidentally spilled spot remover on my dog and he disappeared. You know what I hate? Indian Givers... No, I take that back. »www.folsomtech.com | |
| 
Hypn0tyze
Adam
join:2001-05-13
BOOM | lol 
--
I got a new car for my wife. Which I consider a good deal. | |
| 
Spiro0
join:2003-08-04
Austin, TX
| 5 GHz wouldn't stay in the wires As far as I know 5 GHz might have lower losses in the air than in the wires, so it sounds like 802.11a is for the last 100 ft.
If they used the top of their poles to hold highly directional antennas or free space optics for backhaul we'd all be better off. | |
| |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: 5 GHz wouldn't stay in the wires said by Spiro0 :
As far as I know 5 GHz might have lower losses in the air than in the wires, so it sounds like 802.11a is for the last 100 ft.
If they used the top of their poles to hold highly directional antennas or free space optics for backhaul we'd all be better off.
Corridor is using a technique similar to something called G-Line where the radio waves are propagated on the surface of the conductor, rather than actually being conducted through the line. They have a patent on this technology called E-Line. It would be extremely lossy as you have indicated if they were conducting it through the line. (Note that low speed HF BPL is lossy going through powerlines as well because the powerline acts like an antenna.)
The customer "drops" are probably wireless from the powerline into the house as I imagine the E-line technique would be problematic with twisted cable power drops and the old getting-past-the-transformer issue. They do appear to be using 802.11 / 5 Ghz for both the drops and the main system.
FSO would be nerdy cool, but a pain. Run fiber and all these issues go away | |
| | |
BPL was PLC
@rr.com
| Re: 5 GHz wouldn't stay in the wires Excellent post, rf_engineer.
Quick, everybody, what's 54x4? Now that we've got that - what's the raw throughput of 802.11a?
Corridor just may be vaporware, and Corridor Systetms just might be abusing the term BPL for Broadband OVER Powerlines (not through them).
Understand that I'm not saying I have an excellent read on the situation, I'm just calling it as I see it. | |
| |
Spiro0
join:2003-08-04
Austin, TX
| Re: Run fiber and all these issues go away Yeah, I would like fiber or the right kind of coax to my house. I think it is in the Netherlands you can get residential 75Mbps (using coax into the house) for the price of US cable -- although probably gov't subsidized. Sorry I can't find the link right now, but I think it is on DSLR.
Most companies are afraid to invest, which leads them down the easy but imaginary road of Broadband Over Pixies. | |
| | |
Spiro0
join:2003-08-04
Austin, TX
| Re: Run fiber and all these issues go away Correction: Sorry for the wildly inaccurate 75Mbps:o. it's 8Mbps/1Mbps ADSL from the Netherlands gov't owned phone company for € 75.00 / ~$91 USD.
The original topic is here: Look at this offer from ..... by georgequ | |
| 
WillHaeck
join:2002-01-20
Monroe, WA
| Fiber's last 100 This to me brings up an interesting new idea, combine the idea of a last 100 ft. wireless solution, with fiber. As I understand it the most expensive part of a fiber deployment are the termination points (costing upwards of $1000 i believe) so why not just spend this $1000 once for a cul de sac of 10 or so and then have it all broadcast out from a wireless point. Maybe this isn't new, but an idea all the same. IMO BPL is nothing new or useful, WHERE'S THE FIBER? | |
| | | |
|
|
·