Industry Denies BPL Threat'There won't be any interference' ( old news - 03:27PM Thursday Jan 08 2004) tags: alternatives · troubleDespite a long list of agencies and organizations worried about the potential interference hazards of broadband via power-lines, the United PowerLine Council claims there's simply nothing to worry about. Though early data seems to indicate the contrary, UPC's Brett Kilbourne is "entirely satisfied that there won't be any interference". Computer Weekly is the latest to explore the BPL interference debate, with plenty of quotes from industry execs on the interference claims made by radio hobbyists and government agencies. Despite studies and video journals (23 Meg MPEG) by groups like the ARRL, warnings from FEMA and other government agencies, and a long list of failed trials world-wide, BPL industry execs have consistently refuted any suggestion that the technology could disrupt emergency communications. When one Pennsylvania community recently voiced concerns that trials in their region would cause problems, executives responded by saying such "allegations were untrue." "If there was the potential for a problem, the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates radio frequencies, wouldn't have given the company the green light on commercializing the service."The National Telecommunications and Information Administration is currently conducting their own study to be released this year.
Related:- Sprint Broadband Direct Goes Offline July 31
- Solar Wi-Fi Plan Ends In Lawsuit
- 2008: The Year Broadband Over Powerline Died
- Broadband Over Power Lines Gets An Autopsy
- Tech Media Discovers FCC Staffed With Dunces, Lobbyists
- Real Consumer Group Takes Aim At Fake Ones
- Revolving Door Between Lobbyists, FCC Continues
- AT&T's 'Blogger Guy' Faces Public Backlash
|
 CCCMTech
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-05-17
Pound, VA
| Green light.......red light that's just funny...
T1s interfere with DSL but you don't see the FCC banning that, the government stating the potential and not giving the actual go ahead should be signs. It's a new technology, the FCC cannot determine all the affects until it has been tested which is what the TRIALS are all about. I hate politics and legislation.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today? | |
|  | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
1 edit | My fellow Americans do I have a deal for You! said by CCCMTech  :
that's just funny...
T1s interfere with DSL but you don't see the FCC banning that, the government stating the potential and not giving the actual go ahead should be signs. It's a new technology, the FCC cannot determine all the affects until it has been tested which is what the TRIALS are all about. I hate politics and legislation.
Tested, Trials!? Haven't you been reading these postings.
The technology is hardly new. It has been tested in many
countries and has been found wanting. It is not stable in bit rate, it's subject to external RF fields, it radiates it's own field. How many times must it be stated you can not contain an RF field in an unshielded copper wire. These so called engineers can quote all of the voodoo
theory they want. skin effect, Faraday dark magic. Tesla
witchcraft, Hari Krishna's beating drums, Scientology power channeling, Wendy's triple with cheese aroma vapor fields, known in Voodoo engineering circles as the smack-yo-lips momma effect. I am all for technology that works but these
BPL missionaries are starting to sound like Patent medicine road shows hawking their wares to whom ever will listen, and by the time these locals find out they have been sold
a turkey these con artists will be gone.
--
I love Irish Terriers, Low Brass, and the sound of a 1950 Johnson Viking 1 tranmitter on the air for the first time in 30 years. | |
| | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: Green light.......red light said by CCCMTech :
that's just funny...
It's a new technology, the FCC cannot determine all the affects until it has been tested which is what the TRIALS are all about.
The only thing new is the fact they have hardware that will hook up to the power transmission lines at a price that may let them make a profit. Power line technology has been around for years, I built a small system back in collage (1979-80) that transmitted a primitive digital signal using the power line that a doctor's office could use for a set of coded light panels. Even at that low power, the AM radio would pick the pulses when sitting next to a power line run. Second or third harmonic if I recall it correctly.
I do not remember how it was interfaced, I was doing the signaling portion and I do not even remember how I did that!
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | CCCMTech
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-05-17
Pound, VA
| Re: Green light.......red light New as in NEW to this country using a different type of technology than has been used. Transmitting a simple signal is much different than trying to run an ISP using power lines. If THAT was an older technology in this country, we wouldn't need trials everywhere.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today? | |
| | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: Green light.......red light said by CCCMTech :
New as in NEW to this country using a different type of technology than has been used. Transmitting a simple signal is much different than trying to run an ISP using power lines. If THAT was an older technology in this country, we wouldn't need trials everywhere.
Well, if that is your definition of new then I have to grant you that point (btw, my project and others WERE done in the US of A). To me, the only thing new is the fact that they can now make the devices cheaply enough, lossless enough, yet still handle the power levels (both line and signal), and that there is a potential market base to have a chance at making a profit.
You are right about the difference in interference between my simple (now) project and the current ISP over power line trials. An ISP over power line will have a much more massive affect on the RF environment. The only thing we will see are studies that will be massaged to return data like '4 out of 5 doctors surveyed'. I know, I work for the gov and see it all the time from contractors.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| There's nothing to see here... ...move along.
I love it when companies do this, however it scares me when people act like sheep and follow it blindly...
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
| | | N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN
| This is ridiculous ! Individuals, AMRAD, ARRL, and others have all publicly presented evidence of actual interference, both from and to BPL systems. Not one BPL proponent has presented any evidence to the contrary. When confronted, they claim ridiculous things like "that's always been there" or "you must be hearing a licensed service". I'm surprised they haven't blamed it on extra-terrestials!
His argument that the FCC would not let them proceed if there was interference is equally ridiculous. Under part 15, they can build almost anything; it is their responsibility to verify that it does not interfere, not the FCC's.
Mr Kilbourne;
SHOW US YOUR EVIDENCE! | |
| 
Mellow
Premium
join:2001-11-16
Salisbury, MD | ham operators Are any of these exec's ham operators? My guess is NO. Have these exec's stuck their heads to close to the BPL devices? My guess is YES. | |
| | 
Hank
Its all relative
Premium
join:2002-05-21
Burlington, WV
| Re: ham operators said by Mellow :
Are any of these exec's ham operators? My guess is NO. Have these exec's stuck their heads to close to the BPL devices? My guess is YES.
Hey, their only concern is with making a buck. | |
| markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO | Hardly and issue is correct Interference is not a issue, if it was you would see %90 of the current electronics, and tech gadgets pulled off the shelves as well. Heck remove every microwave's from every home why don't you.
Yes it is the same thing. | |
| | 
bokamba
Chengdu Rocks
Premium
join:2002-04-05
Falls Church, VA | Re: Hardly and issue is correct You need to provide some data to back up your statements, considering the fact that power line and home electronics have very different amounts of current running through them. Also, very many people disagree with you to a high degree. | |
| | | | | | 
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by markopoleo :
Interference is not a issue, if it was you would see %90 of the current electronics, and tech gadgets pulled off the shelves as well. Heck remove every microwave's from every home why don't you.
How many electronic gadgets can you name that emit RF energy for many octaves at or near FCC Part 15 levels with a large, distributed antenna extending tens or hundreds of miles ?
FCC Part 15 was created to allow devices to emit an acceptable and tolerable level of incidental radio energy and not place unnecessary and costly burdens on consumer electronics designers. Such interference is typically narrowband occasional interference, not 7 x 24 blanketing of large swaths of spectrum over large geographical areas.
quote:
Yes it is the same thing.
No, it isn't. You're way out in left field again. Your analogy just doesn't make any sense. | |
| | Ad astra
join:2004-01-13
Watertown, CT
| said by markopoleo :
Interference is not a issue, if it was you would see %90 of the current electronics, and tech gadgets pulled off the shelves as well. Heck remove every microwave's from every home why don't you.
Yes it is the same thing.
Harmful interference resulting from its unintentional emissions is the sole technical issue with BPL. Otherwise BPL would be just another wireline service that would not be drawing this sort of attention.
And yes, this is the same sort interference one must contend with from consumer electronics and tech gadgets but to a far, far greater degree.
And thinking about it, 90% of current consumer electronics having to pulled out of service because of the interference they cause may not be a such bad assessment of the present situation.
Not pulled off the shelf, since the devices are fully compliant with existing emission requirements. But that doesn't imply such devices have any chance of being operated in proximity to a sensitive receiver without generating interference.
The way the sytem works, a consumer electronics device is tested as suitable for sale; it isn't necessarily suitable for operation.
I find that I end up having to remediate 50% to 90% of the consumer electronics that I purchase (or that my neighbors do) because of the interference they cause.
The most recent case was a brand new big screen TV that I had to return to the store because there was simply no way to quiet it short of completely wrapping it in aluminum foil. But then I was that device's owner so I had the responsibility to shut it down or fix it.
I won't readily be able to do anything like that should BPL equipment be placed on the power lines that abut my property. Equipment that will be always "on" generating its interference 24/7. Equipment that has to meet even looser standards than the typical consumer junk that one finds on the store shelves.
Now why would anyone want to remove microwave ovens? They have to comply with much tighter emissions standards than your average tech toy and besides, the primary emissions of a microwave oven are confined to their own frequency allocation. | |
| David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| German FCC - BPL does cause interference German FCC is entirely satisfied that BPL does cause interference
Germany has three commercial BPL systems with about 6,000 customers that have been operating (and polluting) for the last year.
Recently there was a meeting of the European regulators to discuss the request of the European BPL/PLC/PLT lobbyists to raise the level of permitted pollution from their systems.
The national delegations presented detailed and colorful PowerPoint presentations on the pollution issue except for the German delegation who presented a two page typed statement which opened with the appropriate pleasantries then got to the point.
“German Government does not regard a European legal framework which results in general freedom to use PLC as desirable at the present time, because Germany has a lot of negative experience with the compatibility of radio networks and line-bound networks. Initial findings about PLC applications suggest that, despite contrary assurances by the manufacturers, the ceilings in force nationally cannot be adhered to.”
The country with the most PLC (BPL) users says it is not compatible, so why are we bothering with this broken, failed and legacy technology? | |
| David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| Austrian FCC shuts down a BPL system Red Cross report that emergency services radio traffic during a disaster response drill last May was the victim of massive BPL interference.
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/01/08/2/?nc=1
Austrian Authorities Pull Plug on BPL Pilot Project
NEWINGTON, CT, Jan 8, 2004--The Austrian Amateur Transmitter Federation (ÖVSV--Öesterreichische Versuchsenderverband) reports that a Broadband over Power Line (BPL) field test in the city of Linz has been cut short as a result of excessive radio interference. ÖVSV, Austria's International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) member-society, said in December that the Government Ministry for Commerce, Innovation and Technology closed down Linz Power Company's BPL pilot project because it was generating interference on the HF bands. Shortwave broadcaster Radio Austria's futureZone service says the case that brought the issue to a head was a Red Cross report that emergency services radio traffic during a disaster response drill last May was the victim of massive BPL interference.
"The Commerce Ministry Order not only means the end of the Linz BPL pilot project," the Radio Austria report said, "but the end of the deployment of this technology in Austria, especially given the interference to radio communication in places of business." According to the broadcaster, measurements were said to have indicated that radiation from the BPL system exceeded permissible field strength levels by a factor of 10,000.
ÖVSV says radio amateurs in Austria have opposed deployment of all BPL experiments on the basis of Austrian communication law as well as International Telecommunication Union international regulations due to the "massive interference to international communication on the important shortwave bands." The Federation maintains that in its current form BPL--also known in Austria as "Internet from the Electrical Outlet"--is neither legal nor compatible with "vital, worldwide shortwave radiocommunication."
Among other problems with BPL, ÖVSV has cited its potential to disrupt emergency communications and safety-of-life services as well as military operations on HF and navigation and aeronautical communication.
Last fall, ÖVSV representatives and Linz amateurs got together with power company representatives in an effort to resolve BPL's incompatibility with HF radio operation. The meetings followed news reports of interference to emergency service communications and QRM complaints from several area hams. "Because of the racket, expensive installations, such as a 20-meter monobander on a high-rise building, become totally worthless," ÖVSV said.
The utility agreed to look into the possibility of a 100-meter protective zone around each amateur's location, notch filters for amateur frequencies, network system filters and the use of 5 GHz wireless local area networks. | |
| 
sickened
@emhril.ameritech
| wasting time hacks and patches like BPL should be done away with by providing proper incentives to build new and RF clean infrastructure, such as all-fiber networks. Too bad that costs money, which means it wont happen without a good deal of change.
If there was enough competition form the PUD's and smaller fiber startups, maybe we would see some real motivation from the big players in the telecom industry. | |
| David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| BBC research department confirms BPL interference The BBC research department which is a world-leading R&D centre for media production and broadcasting technology investigated a PLT (AKA BPL) system in Crieff, Scotland and below is an abstract from their report
»www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp067.html
A brief site visit to Crieff is reported; it took place, at the invitation of Scottish and Southern Electricity, to examine some Power Line Telecommunications (PLT) installations (used to connect domestic and commercial premises to the internet). Two competing systems are described, examples of which were seen, and the scope for interference to HF broadcasting assessed. The circumstances of the trial limited the scale of scientific experimentation, nevertheless some clear conclusions are drawn. Both systems caused interference to HF reception, although one system appeared to have made some attempts to limit this. Some suggestions are made how co-existence between PLT and home radio reception might be investigated; such investigation would be essential before any wide-scale implementation of PLT. Audio recordings demonstrating the interference are available. | |
| 
CheeseWare
Premium
join:2003-04-24
Burnaby, BC
|  Interference overshadows much bigger BPL problems
1 - DSL, Fiber and Cable equipment gear is reaching price commodity status while BPL gear has not gone though neither standardization and standards bodies yet. Related skills are also reaching commodity status while BPL still requires truck rolls and specialized people handling power lines. Wireless equipment gear is also reaching price commodity status alongside with the skills required to have a wISP in the rural areas. Deployment expenses would further increase in these areas with the internet backhaul costs, the larger number of BPL repeaters required and low subscriber density. CAPEX people will not let that through.
2 - Liability issues associated with disrupting powerline (&broadcast) services are daunting. Safety issues with BPL subscribers (&operating staff) are just as difficult. Although some lawers may benefit from this, the onus will be on the BPL Operators and Vendors and potentially their muni clients to defend themselves at great expenses. Lawers will not let that through.
3 - Not having a bandwidth roadmap, the technology is doomed to early obsolescence with tremendous writeoff costs and lots of people losing face. Skilled network planners will either work on more promising technologies or will not let that through.
4 - OPEX cost of adding a line is highly dependant on line topology and BPL repeater power levels; capacity of line also depends on notches and inbound interference that can dramatically decrease throughput; OPEX cost of acquiring (&provisioning) a subscriber is unknown. OPEX cost of maintaining 5NINES availability is unknown. Subscriber churn rate is unknown. OPEX troubleshooting cost of keeping a subscriber (e.g. loopback test) when threatening to churn is also unknown. OPEX cost of Maintenance Of Line (MOL) takes a whole new meaning under BPL and is totally unknown. Technical trials and market trials do not appear to have solved these issues and they can't hand this over into operations. Pilots have not matured beyond handling a handful of subscribers reached though underground powerlines. Skilled operation staff in will not let that through.
5 - In light of the above, costing a BPL subscriber service at $30 month looks most suspect. After the Enrons and likes, accountants will not let that through. Serious BPL investors will ask for these figures and will not let that through either. In light of a very suspect Return On Investment (ROI), elected officials in municipalities will not let that through, even if they really wish to generate revenues out of this.
I am looking forward to a media story where someone states that there are problems with BPL deployment far bigger than interference whether solved rightly or wrongly. Deploying BPL would suck precious financial resources and create a financial mayhem worse than the RF wasteland. We just can't afford to do these kinds of mistakes in these tough times. BPL investors and media, please educate yourself on the ROI financials side and smarten up out of this techie talk.
Must we let the system screw the dumb BPL investors (including munies) or should we educate them in better allocating their hard earned dollars?
Forum-mates: please help me out. Am I overreacting? | |
| | David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| Re: Interference overshadows much bigger BPL problems CheeseWare,
You clearly understand the financial dimension and your comments are a very clear insight into the situation.
As in past scams the innocent will be presented with the bill and the scammers will move on to the next scam.
The Electricity companies have a track record of vacuuming their victim’s wallets;
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/26/national/main546097.shtml | |
| | |
CheeseWare
Premium
join:2003-04-24
Burnaby, BC
| Re: Interference overshadows much bigger BPL problems What gets me non-linear is that many "media" are falling in the trap of the BPL industry by totally blind sighting the worse case scenario of BPL, i.e. flawed financials leading to further loss of confidence in our financial institutions.
It is not that we have not been there before and should know better by now. I notice that the Enron scam auditors are about done with the nicely hairdo-ed and fast-talking Enron execs. Perhaps they should do a preemptive strike on the BPL industry scammers and audit their financial claims of monthly $30 per subscriber for not even a real broadband throughput. What are the assumptions made, are these assumptions validated with people with real credentials?
The most interesting story on BPL has now turned to how the media covers this. I am obviously seriously affected by Kucinick and his record dealing with the pucs. I can see the same flow of Public Relations money affecting how the stories are being spinned in order to scam investors out of their greed and delusion. With all respect to the most valuable service that BBR provides, I trust the story spinners understand that the forum participants will become more critical of the BPL news coverage. I can definitely see more people getting further irritated if this coverage does not get more balanced. | |
| | | |
CheeseWare
Premium
join:2003-04-24
Burnaby, BC | Shall we play poker? Allright the interference problem can be worked out. Tell us more about your financials then. How can you provide a lighweight broadband service at $30 a month?
Any takers out there to answer this one in the media??? | |
| |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
1 edit | Excellent!!! I have been following this aspect of the issue
and the fact the stock in these companies last time I checked was in the 14 cents per share range should tell you just how much confidence the investment community has in this technology.
What really gets me is why doesn't doesn't our government invest in a national network system. I look at this as something like the "Defence Interstate Highway System"
The Government has spent billions on this system over the last 45 plus years, the money invested has been paid back
in the improvement in the gross national product many times over. I feel such a federal investment in a digital highway would reap the same benefits to the nation. Look what we have now, a bunch of large monopolistic players that not only try to rip each other, but prevent anyone else from getting in the game. power companies that want to put digital streams on 70+ year old power lines. We need something other then a politicised FCC to do it.
--
I love Irish Terriers, Low Brass, and the sound of a 1950 Johnson Viking 1 tranmitter on the air for the first time in 30 years. | |
| | |
CheeseWare
Premium
join:2003-04-24
Burnaby, BC
| Re: Interference overshadows much bigger BPL problems If the government was not so much in debt, perhaps a government solution could be considered. I am however sceptical here North of 49 of any government undertaking complex tasks.
What I see however is that the FCC supports in its own very weird way the existing monopolies by having supported all the uncertainties with BPL, hence supporting statu-quo with the appearance of doing something about deploying broadband.
Worse the FCC has confused investors and steered them away from more practical and feasible solutions that startups could cost effectively undertake -vs- the bloated monopolies. I would say to the FCC: get entirely out of this, or if you want to put your nose in this, resolve the uncertainty on BPL the sooner the better. Because you have blown it big times: quit supporting the monopolies statu-quo. It is blatant that you do and your goverment will get thrown out if you keep doing so until the next election. | |
| 
Ianguy
join:2002-06-09
Tehachapi, CA |  Take advantage of interference! (just a thought)
| |
| |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
1 edit | Re: Take advantage of interference! (just a thought) said by Ianguy :
This may be stupid, but why not figure out away to turn this interference into usable broadcast? - Use the power grid as a broadcast antena...
Good observation. This concept has been used in the past to broadcast AM signals and is called Carrier Current. RF energy is coupled to the power lines and it radiates it out to listeners.
There are probably some unlicensed stations still using this technique today. At the very least, it disproves the claims by BPL proponents that power lines don't radiate radio signals. | |
| | 
drjim
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
Torrance, CA
clubs:
| Re: Take advantage of interference! (just a though That's exactly what's happening. Unfortunately, it's screwing up licensed broadcasting. And people seem to forget that it's a two-way street. If I go on the air, I'll not only have to put up with wide-band noise, I'll probaly take down every Internet connection within half a mile that's using this crummy technology.
It's badly thought out, and just another way for companies to try and make a buck. I don't mind companies trying to improve their profit structure, but they should think about what they're trying to do, and the other ramifications it can have.
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering. | |
| Nighttime
join:2001-11-30
| What part of NO dont they understand! Sheech!
A million trials or kicking a dead horse wont make it work or move!
Every county that has tried this have come to one basic conclusion. NO! No, it wont work. No, it does cause interference. No, its not practical. No, its not better than already exist broadband pipelines. Basically NO WAY!
I though the days of strange money schemes of the dot com wacko ideas has died when that bubble burst? | |
| 
TheToro
Premium
join:2003-06-05
London, UK
 ·Comcast
·Jazztel
1 edit | In spain with the same problem in SPain there are around 2000 PLC conexions, but Amateur Radio Relay League they got interference, and is that is the problem, The PLC in SPain is very importat cos we are under a monopoly of DSL called Telefonica, and the cable is aviable in a few places,, we have to pay 40€to 256/128 DSL or 40€ 300/150 cable, and the the ISPs PLC sell 600/600 40€ , it the best solution if you want more speed. | |
| | Ad astra
join:2004-01-13
Watertown, CT
| Re: In spain with the same problem said by TheToro :
in SPain there are around 2000 PLC conexions, but Amateur (sic) Radio Relay League they got interference, and is that is the problem, The PLC in SPain is very importat cos we are under a monopoly of DSL called Telefonica, and the cable is aviable in a few places,, we have to pay 40€to 256/128 DSL or 40€ 300/150 cable, and the ISPs PLC sell 600/600 40€ , it the best solution if you want more speed.
In case there's any confusion, complaints of interference from the PLC (BPL) service offered by Endesa in Zaragoza and Bacellona and Iberdrola in Madrid do not come from the "ARRL" (the American Radio Relay League) but from URE (Unión Radioaficionados Españoles), Spain's national amateur radio organization. »www.ure.es/plc/ | |
| w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO
|  Here we go again
Another loin licking beaurocratic lawyer statement.
This is the most insane nonsense statement I've heard yet on why they are continuing the deployments. It has absolutely no technical background and is typical of a government XXXhole's statement to the press so they can buy more time and keep the non-techies satisfied that all is well. Well it isn't! FEMA, ARRL, NTIA, NOAA, DSES, NIST and many others already have data that shows severe interference caused by this crap. They have nothing to show otherwise except for these dumbXXX political statements. If that's all they got well they should be fired when it finally gets to the average non-technical user that they can no longer use their garage door openers or even their baby monitors any more relaibly. What a JOKE! | |
|
CheeseWare
Premium
join:2003-04-24
Burnaby, BC
|  Shall we play poker?
Allright let's assume that the interference problem can be worked out at the risk of irritating a number of my ham friends and other RF aware people. Would this be really the only problem that the BPL industry has? Tell us more about your financials then. How can your industry possibly provide a lighweight broadband service at $30 a month?
Note that I have reposted from an other thread where this posting was burried. Don't wish to blind-sight anyone.;) | |
| |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA | Re: Shall we play poker? How about Interference Poker? Have these spokespeople put up a bet and then drive around with me and a communications receiver in a BPL test area. I'd make some easy money  | |
| | |
CheeseWare
Premium
join:2003-04-24
Burnaby, BC
1 edit | Re: Shall we play poker? I wonder if Mr. Kilbourne would rather show up at an Interference poker game or a Flawed Financials one. It would be neat if BBR held a poll amongst its participants to find out if people thinks that BPL is more flawed technically (i.e. interference) or financially. My bet is that it is a very close toss. No matter what, Mr. Kilbourne needs to increase his Public Relations budget. | |
| | N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN
| Or his lobbying budget; Former Senator Bennett Johnston (who was once Chair of the Senate Energy Committee) and Former New York Attorney General Robert Abrams are both on the advisory committee for Ambient.
Good to know 'revolving door' politics is alive and well! | |
| proBPLguy
join:2004-01-13
Alpharetta, GA
|  Solid tech, solid revenue model at $30
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. | |
| | RFJock
join:2004-01-13
Norfolk, VA
| Re: Not so solid tech model Ok so go ahead and invest your hard earned $$ in Prospect Street. Here is what I predict will happen:
1. Prospect Street gets a significant roll-out done in Manassas.
2. FCC receives complaint of interfence from FAA to the Potomac TRACON Center (uses HF radio for long range air traffic communications).
3. FCC shuts down Prospect Street until interference to air traffic control is resolved.
4. Prospect Street and City of Manassas(not to mention subscribers) wind up in court over a long term contract for technology that FCC will not permit to operate.
5. Prospect Street/Main.net stock tanks.
There is no way I would put my hard earned bucks into investments in this flawed technology. Solid revenue model? Maybe so, but when the service gets shut down for technical, not financial reasons, it will matter not one iota that they had a solid business plan. | |
| | RFJock
join:2004-01-13
Norfolk, VA
| Re: Solid tech, solid revenue model at $30 said by proBPLguy :
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.
You really don't understand this technology, do you? There are NO point source emissions in this BPL system. The WHOLE power line grid radiates! It is NOT a point source emission, as a cell phone or hand-held tranceiver is a point source radiator. To stop the emission, you have to shut off the RF feed to the system, and thus remove the RF from the antenna (in this case, many 10s of miles of power lines).
A cable system or telco system with twisted pairs, is a closed, shielded system and would thus contain some "point source leakage". The power system is an open, unsheilded system and the whole thing radiates when RF is applied.
My friend, I fear you are buying into the industry hype! | |
| | | | XJMark
join:2004-01-10
Seminole, FL
| Hilarious! You say part 15 like it's worth something. LMAO!!! I guess you bought into all the BPL "techno babble" out there.
Kid's walkie talkies are part 15 and so are toy rc cars and cordless phones. That imparts alot of confidence there, LOL!! Part 15 is the easiest type acceptance there is.
Basically any Chinese made piece of consumer crap with a transistor in it is part 15. The FCC hands out the Part 15 certs with minimal testing because they can shut it down at the drop of a hat. Sounds like a solid investment to me, NOT!!
Familiarize yourself with RF compliancy before you stick more of your foot in your mouth. I've been in the RF and compliancy biz for nearly 15 years, part of it with Motorola.
If it was worth a damn it would have a different type acceptance and require a blanket license much like a business Part 90 for commercial equipment etc. Of course they can't qualify for something like this because of the nature of the technology.
Cable television uses many frequencies in the aircraft, public safety, and amateur bands but it is contained in a shielded cable and causes no ouside interference. BPL is in the open with no shielding, it's a big antenna. There is no "patching" of isolated RF leaks because the whole thing is an antenna! This is why amateur radio transmissions cause BPL users to lose their connection.
There's nothing there to keep the outside world out of BPL, just like there's nothing to keep BPL in. Should be a great haul for credit card scammers since your data isn't secure because it's just floating around out there.... Oh, but we won't get into that, I'd hate to hurt BPL's chances of being implemented. LOL!!
Considering I'm "licensed" for Part 97 and I don't have any radio telescopes in the vicinity, I'll just run one of the many 24/7 CW beacon stations found throughout our bands for propagation reports and no one will be able to use BPL in my area. Problem solved. Legally too. Why? Because Part 15 may not cause harmful interference, and MUST accept all interference. The FCC always sides with "licensed" users.
Personally I don't think we'll see BPL implemented in this country any time soon. At least not as the Part 15 kludge that it is. Anyone who would invest serious funds into a Part 15 network needs their head examined. Part 15 is too susceptible to being shut down on a case by case basis by the FCC. As for being cheap to implement... BPL is the kid's walkie talkie (the dollar store kind) of broadband. Sad, but true. | |
| | | spOOkie8
join:2000-10-31
Palm Harbor, FL | Re: Solid tech, solid revenue model at $30
802.11J The "J" is for "Junk". | |
| | | |
|
|
·