 
Neil
Stop All The Downloadin
join:2003-08-20
New York, NY
edit:
September 24th, @05:14PM
| great. I think they're all for it. All the hype about finally being able to get broadband to rural areas is just that. Hype. If it interferes with existing technology like ham radios, it shouldn't be approved. I'm not being closed-minded to new technologies, but it hasn't been tested by the FCC enough for them to make a ruling on it yet.
--
idunno much about computers other than the one we got at my house my mom put a couple games on there and i play em
The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect those of my employer. | |
|  | | | | 
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
 ·Corporate Colocation
| Re: great. That's all well and good, but does anyone have any audio files of "supposed" AM/FM radio interference that the ARRL is jumping up and down screaming it will ruin?
Also, on the longer .mp3 you posted, he was talking about signals form 28Khz to 28Mhz.
Emergency communications use the 800Mhz spectrum if I'm not mistaken, so once again, I don't see how this affects any but HAMs.
He even stated "They did a good job notching out the Citizens Spectrum!".
I don't understand a lot of what he said, so please correct me if I missed something.
--
TripOnThis.net Administrator
"Security by obscurity is no security at all. Don't believe the hype." (c) MntlCase | |
| | | | 
Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA | Re: great. You must have missed my whole post above yours Mntlcase. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: great. I noticed that the 1 mp3 i posted was down,so i removed it from my message.........
YES the main interference will be from 80megs down into the am broadcast band......Do you really wanna lose all that spectrum??????
I sure dont............. | |
| | | | | | |
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| Re: great. said by Dude111  :
I noticed that the 1 mp3 i posted was down,so i removed it from my message.........
YES the main interference will be from 80megs down into the am broadcast band......Do you really wanna lose all that spectrum??????
I sure dont.............
Well, personally, I am not a HAM.
So I could care less about the 80Mhz and "less" band.
From what the "long mp3" guy in your post says, they "notched" out the CB guys (Citizens Band).
I would assume they have also "notched out" the AM/FM radio bands.
So, once again, we are left with the HAM guys, who occupy a HUGE portion of the radio spectrum and don't want to lose it.
I read up on this all the time, yet I have a 1st grade understanding of RADIO, unless it comes to WiFi.
I don't see how this will affect anyone except for the HAM guys...
--
TripOnThis.net Administrator
"Security by obscurity is no security at all. Don't believe the hype." (c) MntlCase | |
| | | | | | | | 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: great. said by MattE :
So, once again, we are left with the HAM guys, who occupy a HUGE portion of the radio spectrum and don't want to lose it.
HUGE!?!? Gee I never thought we hams occupied a "HUGE" amount of spectrum but maybe my ability to do simple math is off. Between .540MHz (540KHz - low end of the AM broadcast band) and 80MHz hams have:
1.800MHz to 2.000MHz = 200KHz
3.500MHz to 4.000MHz = 500KHz
7.000MHz to 7.300MHz = 300KHz
10.000MHz to 10.150MHz = 150KHz
14.000MHz to 14.350MHz = 350KHz
18.068MHz to 18.168MHz = 100KHz
21.000MHz to 21.450MHz = 450KHz
24.890MHz to 24.990MHz = 100KHz
28.000MHz to 29.700MHz = 1700KHz (1.7MHz)
50.000MHz to 54.000MHz = 4000KHz (4.0MHz)
A grand total of 7850KHz or 7.85MHz of amateur radio spectrum out of a total of 80MHz, less than 10% of all of that. HUGE? Of course the rest of that is shared by broadcasters, military, public safety, aviation, etc. They will get hit worse than the hams but are probably not aware of the train wreck heading down the tunnel.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| | | | | | | | |
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| Re: great. said by n2jtx :
said by MattE :
So, once again, we are left with the HAM guys, who occupy a HUGE portion of the radio spectrum and don't want to lose it.
HUGE!?!? Gee I never thought we hams occupied a "HUGE" amount of spectrum but maybe my ability to do simple math is off. Between .540MHz (540KHz - low end of the AM broadcast band) and 80MHz hams have:
1.800MHz to 2.000MHz = 200KHz
3.500MHz to 4.000MHz = 500KHz
7.000MHz to 7.300MHz = 300KHz
10.000MHz to 10.150MHz = 150KHz
14.000MHz to 14.350MHz = 350KHz
18.068MHz to 18.168MHz = 100KHz
21.000MHz to 21.450MHz = 450KHz
24.890MHz to 24.990MHz = 100KHz
28.000MHz to 29.700MHz = 1700KHz (1.7MHz)
50.000MHz to 54.000MHz = 4000KHz (4.0MHz)
A grand total of 7850KHz or 7.85MHz of amateur radio spectrum out of a total of 80MHz, less than 10% of all of that. HUGE? Of course the rest of that is shared by broadcasters, military, public safety, aviation, etc. They will get hit worse than the hams but are probably not aware of the train wreck heading down the tunnel.
That's 2Khz through 4.0Mhz.
Sorry, that doesn't touch anything, AM or FM, 800Mhz (Emergency) or anything I am worried about.
I feel for the HAM guys, but perhaps they should innovate like always. Just "learn" the interference and devise equipment that filters it out.
--
TripOnThis.net Administrator
"Security by obscurity is no security at all. Don't believe the hype." (c) MntlCase | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: great. said by MattE :
I feel for the HAM guys, but perhaps they should innovate like always. Just "learn" the interference and devise equipment that filters it out.
Suggestions like this may work in the movies, but not here, and it actually could be a detriment to BPL. If you play the noise floor game, hams and other HF spectrum users can merely raise the bar by using more power to overcome the signals. Anecdotal test results have indicated that power levels as low as several watts can bring down some BPL systems.
Hams have actually innovated over the years, to the point where ham communications can occur with signal levels that expensive lab equipment has difficulty measuring. If a BPL system operating within FCC Part 15 limits drops a signal tens of dB higher than a signal in the noise floor someone is attempting to receive, it's difficult to pull this out with technology. Believe me, if it could be done, it would have been already and someone would be making some money doing it 
The point here is that it is a needless waste to destroy good spectrum with worldwide communications capabilities with a wired network transmitting data for a couple hundred feet, especially when proven non-radiating alternatives exist. BPL might have been acceptable in a time before cable, DSL, and WiFi, but this time has passed. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
hams2
@midco.net
| fema usages hf two. and so do alot of disaster agencys so if you don't care about bpl causeing problems to these agencys who try to help save lives during a disaster then who are you. The U.S.Coast Guard uses hf to contact ships in trouble and helps when ever needed by useing hf in areas where nothing else works. and if you think bpl only cause local problem then you totally wrong. HF you are able to talk long distance at very low power i know some who talked from montana to russia with only 5 watts. so inference will travel a long distance with only a few watts. that my 2cents. | |
| | | | | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by MattE :
said by Dude111 :
I noticed that the 1 mp3 i posted was down,so i removed it from my message.........
YES the main interference will be from 80megs down into the am broadcast band......Do you really wanna lose all that spectrum??????
I sure dont.............
Well, personally, I am not a HAM.
So I could care less about the 80Mhz and "less" band.
From what the "long mp3" guy in your post says, they "notched" out the CB guys (Citizens Band).
I would assume they have also "notched out" the AM/FM radio bands.
So, once again, we are left with the HAM guys, who occupy a HUGE portion of the radio spectrum and don't want to lose it.
I read up on this all the time, yet I have a 1st grade understanding of RADIO, unless it comes to WiFi.
I don't see how this will affect anyone except for the HAM guys...
BPL has purposely avoided the AM and FM broadcast bands. Hams occupy about 10% of the BPL affected spectrum, the rest is federal frequencies, international shortwave, transoceanic aviation, and a bunch of other miscellaneous services. The spectrum has special properties that no other wireless spectrum has and is really a natural resource when you think about it.
Looking beyond hams for a moment, the track the FCC is heading with BPL is a dangerous one from a communications perspective. Licensed services, whether they be ham, broadcasting, two way radio, cellular, point-to-point microwave, etc., have always had protection from unlicensed services. Licensing and frequency allocations are naturally needed otherwise we'd have anarchy on the airwaves and it would be of little use to anyone. The FCC's reckless actions basically say your license is worthless because we'll sell your frequencies to the next hyped technology we fall in love with. Of even more concern is there has been a ton of damning evidence filed with the FCC. Ten or fifteen years ago this would have been enough for the Commission to close the book on something like BPL. This time it hasn't even phased the Commission and they have instead taken the role of a BPL lobbyist. | |
| | | | | | | | |
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| Re: great. said by rf_engineer :
Well, personally, I am not a HAM.
So I could care less about the 80Mhz and "less" band.
From what the "long mp3" guy in your post says, they "notched" out the CB guys (Citizens Band).
I would assume they have also "notched out" the AM/FM radio bands.
So, once again, we are left with the HAM guys, who occupy a HUGE portion of the radio spectrum and don't want to lose it.
I read up on this all the time, yet I have a 1st grade understanding of RADIO, unless it comes to WiFi.
I don't see how this will affect anyone except for the HAM guys...
BPL has purposely avoided the AM and FM broadcast bands. Hams occupy about 10% of the BPL affected spectrum, the rest is federal frequencies, international shortwave, transoceanic aviation, and a bunch of other miscellaneous services.
Ok, so you agree that BPL will not affect *MY* radio stations, nor my EMS services. Right?
Yet you are stating the rest affects the "Federal" frequencies?
Don't you think if it really affected "Federal" frequencies, the government would have shot it down from day one?
I'm just not feeling this.
No offense, but once again, this just seems like a minority trying to protect their spectrum.
Hell, the government is about to subsidize the adoption of HDTV to auction off that spectrum.
--
TripOnThis.net Administrator
"Security by obscurity is no security at all. Don't believe the hype." (c) MntlCase | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
edit:
September 24th, @10:10PM
| Re: great. I love all the attitude from the people who wont be affected by this!!!! 
This crap will affect ALL MODES FROM ABOUT 80MEGS DOWN JUST BELOW THE AM BROADCAST BAND!!!!! Cordless phones,fire,etc will be affected!!!!!!!!!!! (I use 10 and 11 meters quite often!!!)
THIS IS A STUPID,STUPID IDEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
God get with it guys!!!!  | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 95flhr
join:2000-11-21
Springfield, VA | Re: great. Do some further checking, there are a lot of State Police agencies that use frequencies in the 50 MHz range, not to mention County Sherrif, etc... They are not emergency medical providers, but they are first responders in some areas. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
edit:
September 24th, @10:50PM
| Re: great. said by MattE :
said by rf_engineer :
said by Dude111 :
I love all the attitude from the people who wont be affected by this!!!!
Remember the BBR article awhile back about the BPL that uses WiFi? Folks who loved HF BPL in previous articles were choking on their lattes when they thought their Linksys access points were going to be jammed.
Heh.
That's 2.4Ghz, or, 5Ghz.
Not 4.0Mhz.
Sorry, I still don't see why I should feel sorry for anyone.
There's two kinds of BPL, HF and WiFi, for lack of better terms. The HF BPL which resides on 1.8 to 80 Mhz is the BPL we are concerned with. This spectrum can propagate around the world with little power and is subject to solar and geomagnetic events. WiFi BPL (2.4 Ghz) is in development by a company called Corridor Systems. This uses a different method of propagation on the line. HF BPL is conducted (running through the wire), while WiFi BPL "floats" on the wire using a discovered in the 50's forgotten technique called G-Line (patented by Corridor and called E-Line).
I have less concerns about WiFi BPL interfering with wireless LAN equipment, mainly due to the propagation characteristics of 2.4 Ghz. It's much, much different than HF as it's mainly line of sight propagation.
Even if it did interfere with wireless access points, both BPL and WiFi equipment have equal regulatory rights. Neither have any recourse if they receive interference from licensed or unlicensed sources. There's nothing to dispute as everyone is playing the same game. HF BPL proponents on the other hand have wanted to have rights equal to licensed services, but without the obligations. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by MattE :
Ok, so you agree that BPL will not affect *MY* radio stations, nor my EMS services. Right?
Yet you are stating the rest affects the "Federal" frequencies?
Don't you think if it really affected "Federal" frequencies, the government would have shot it down from day one?
I'm just not feeling this.
No offense, but once again, this just seems like a minority trying to protect their spectrum.
Hell, the government is about to subsidize the adoption of HDTV to auction off that spectrum.
Well, you don't have to feel it, you need to understand it. Just because it doesn't affect you personally in a direct way doesn't mean you shouldn't be concerned. When I watch the nightly news, there's a lot that doesn't affect me directly, but much of what I see concerns me.
Indirectly, federal frequencies are used by agencies like FEMA, which indirectly provide you with something at some time. While you don't personally enjoy the direct benefits of Amateur Radio, you easily could by passing a test. You're not interested, and that's fine, but realize ham radio has given many engineers an opportunity to experiment and learn - an opportunity that they otherwise wouldn't have had.
On the government shooting it down, you should read the NTIA study on this. They have found issues that are of a "genuine concern" (quote taken from the recent UPLC BPL conference). Political pressure has been immense and the findings of the engineers at the NTIA don't jive with what the talking heads are saying. This certainly wouldn't be the first time this has happened in our government. I don't consider this a conspiracy by any means, but politics as usual.
You need to look beyond majority rule and decide what's best based on common sense. Does it make sense to wreck a natural resource that enables infrastructureless worldwide communications for a wired network that radiates as a nasty side effect, or should I promote sound, viable alternatives that can coexist and everyone is happy? | |
| | | | | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by MattE :
Yet you are stating the rest affects the "Federal" frequencies?
Don't you think if it really affected "Federal" frequencies, the government would have shot it down from day one?
That's o.k. Don't come crying here or to anyone when those frequencies are killed and the federal government raises taxes to invest in a whole new communication setup. You think 800Mhz is cheap? Guess again.
The money to buy it will come from higher taxes and you will be paying for it. | |
| | | | hrobins
Premium
join:2000-10-15
Regina, SK
clubs: | Mntlcase, Hams are not the only ones to use 28Mhz. There are becons that use that freq as well as other uses.
I can get you a band plan if you like
Howard Robinson
KG4GSN/VE5GSN | |
| | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by MattE :
Emergency communications use the 800Mhz spectrum if I'm not mistaken, so once again, I don't see how this affects any but HAMs.
Have you ever worked an 800Mhz system?
That system can get overloaded with traffic like any other radio system PLUS requires a lot of infrastructure to work. In remote areas, 800Mhz can't be used or is too costly to implement. Some communities still use public service bands in the 39Mhz area. | |
| brucemartin
join:2002-04-07
Mahwah, NJ
| Other groups also against BPL It's not just ham operators who have objected. The Society of Broadcast Engineers is adamently against it. See »www.sbe.org/FCCLiaison/SBE_04-37_reply.pdf
They are over 5000 professional broadcast engineers who oversee the operation of all commercial radio and television stations. If this is allowed, it would be another example of the current administration ignoring the experts.
Bruce Martin | |
| | 
AJ5TT
join:2003-08-17
Friendswood, TX
| Re: Other groups also against BPL It is not just HAM operators.
There are many others who have submitted, to the FCC, their concerns. Here is one by Aeronautical Radio Incorporated (ARINC) submitted to the FCC'»gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retr···16484229'.
Good FAQ (yes from a HAM) on BPL'»www.qrpis.org/~k3ng/bpl.html'
Think about it. If you have been following the trials that have since shut down, and their problems, then you may have an understanding of the concern of BPL. Some of the BPL operators admittedly recognize their systems produce interference. Keep in mind the BPL interference it is between 2Mhz and 54Mhz (I believe). They attempt notch out the spectrum that may affect a local HAM operator. If they successfully reduce (not eliminate) the interference then the BPL operators still have a system that is interfering with the rest of the spectrum. So while HAMS may have some minor relief, the rest of the spectrum users are impacted.
The people who use the spectrum do file their concerns against BPL. It is just that they file their concerns with the FCC and not sites such as this. | |
| 
i1me2ao
join:2001-03-03
TEXAS | this is a report how can a report effect anything, i did not read anything about rolling this out. this was tested in dallas. hopefully this technology will work out. | |
| David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| BPL 101 BPL is a proven polluter of the most environmentally sensitive part of the radio spectrum, it offers no advantage over other proven Internet delivery solutions – DSL, Cable, WiFi, WiMax, FTTH, satellite etc.
Detailed and carefully prepared filings from a very broad spectrum of radio users – Aeronautical, Public Safety, Broadcasting have highlighted the BPL pollution issues and the real threat to safety of life communications.
Any sensible regulatory authority would simply ban BPL and move on to promote proven Internet delivery systems.
Unfortunately the current political appointees who run the FCC have no understanding of the technical issues and are ready to accept any claim from the failed used car salesmen who run the BPL equipment companies and cheerlead this failed legacy technology like puppets. | |
| | 
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
·Verizon west (ex G..
| Re: BPL 101 said by David95037 :
BPL is a proven polluter of the most environmentally sensitive part of the radio spectrum, it offers no advantage over other proven Internet delivery solutions – DSL, Cable, WiFi, WiMax, FTTH, satellite etc.
This is a good one, "environmentally sensitive part of the radio spectrum", does that mean a BPL deployment will have permanent, irreversible consequences if deployed somewhere. :lol: Radio waves aren't a tree with an owl sitting in it that you have to "hug" to save.
Oh and BPL does have one big advantage over all the other methods you've listed. It can be deployed to greater than 99% of the existing population in this country because.... you guessed it, most of us have powerlines. duh. It doesn't matter how much better, proven, or more reliable some form of broadband is, if you don't have it in your neighborhood you are screwed.
--
Location: N48°05.3' W119°48.5' | |
| | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: BPL 101 said by firephoto :
said by David95037 :
BPL is a proven polluter of the most environmentally sensitive part of the radio spectrum, it offers no advantage over other proven Internet delivery solutions – DSL, Cable, WiFi, WiMax, FTTH, satellite etc.
This is a good one, "environmentally sensitive part of the radio spectrum", does that mean a BPL deployment will have permanent, irreversible consequences if deployed somewhere. :lol: Radio waves aren't a tree with an owl sitting in it that you have to "hug" to save.
"Environmentally sensitive" doesn't necessarily mean irreversible. A lot of environmental catastrophes could reverse themselves in a couple thousand years, but that doesn't make them any less of a concern, but I digress. The message here is that HF radio spectrum has unique capabilities not found elsewhere in the spectrum. Cover it up with local radio noise and you lose the ability to use it for what it's best suited for.
quote:
Oh and BPL does have one big advantage over all the other methods you've listed. It can be deployed to greater than 99% of the existing population in this country because.... you guessed it, most of us have powerlines. duh. It doesn't matter how much better, proven, or more reliable some form of broadband is, if you don't have it in your neighborhood you are screwed.
This is the illusion that makes BPL so deceptively wonderful. The powerlines can't be lit up easily with BPL from power generation facilities or substations with a flip of a switch. It's not a long haul technology so it requires a fiber, wireless, or good old TDM infrastructure to backhaul the traffic. Distance limitations dictate the need for a large number of repeaters and feedpoints. The only real advantage is distribution in the home can occur through the household wiring. And that can be done already with 802.11 today.
Most everyone has copper pairs to their homes....why doesn't everyone have DSL? Using your logic, DSL could be deployed to 99% of the population. Why hasn't it happened? And you expect power companies who move at a snail's pace in making decisions, who have been making money hand over fist selling electrons for decades, decide to deploy BPL in broadband-deprived areas that have an ROI measured in centuries? | |
| | | 
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by firephoto :
BPL does have one big advantage over all the other methods you've listed. It can be deployed to greater than 99% of the existing population
I'm not a Ham and I don't know alot about RF spectrum protection issues but you are wrong about BPLs ability to do much of anything except compete with last-mile delivery in the already well served markets: densely & medium-densely population areas.
The claims of rural service provision are being used by BPL proponents to achieve regulatory approvals - same as the cable industry did in the early & mid 1990s. Also same as cable & telco connectivity, BPL *technically* could be brought to rural areas, but financially it cannot be justified: it too has very high infrastructure build out costs due to signal degradation.
That's why so many people are pissed-off by the antics of the power companies & the whoring of the FCC. The interference issue is classic, single-issue distraction politics: pit the glory of Progress For All against a small, intrenched group of some quaint but "outdated" interests and turn up the volume so it appears that the small "resisters" is the only issue.
So BPL succeeds in winning the publicity war & buying-off the FCC - then what? Well, then they conveniently "discover" that BPL isn't actually appropriate for rural connectivity but say, "gee, we've sunk so much money into political & discovery work that it's only fair you let us deploy in suburbia - it's a free market economy you know & we got our approvals."
That's why people are pissed: they are lying. The RF interference issues are real, but the offensive part is it's not the real issue for BPL rural services - it just pretends to be for political gains and regulatory freedoms to be used elsewhere.
Wireless is the rural savior and, to a lesser degree (for villages), the telcos. | |
| | BBWEST
join:2004-09-05
Port Angeles, WA | Re: BPL 101 / Satellite Correct BPL has no advantages except over Sat which is not broadband due too severe latecy issues | |
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| a technical decision? I think not.
The FCC is so eager to get some sort of alternative broadband deployed, to show there is "competition", that I think there is a good chance they will gloss over all the ugly warts of BPL.
In addition, it's an inferior technology with so many drawbacks it's not worth the effort to deploy. If the FCC would get their heads out of their @sses and give us some real spectrum management, instead of just doing what the broadcasters want, rural areas could be served by wireless broadband.
The FCC is a fvked up mess. | |
| |
Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: a technical decision? The FCC Blows Chunks!!!!!!!!
Its no surprise really.........Whats surprising is how they have not gone ahead way back months ago and did this anyway......They are actually being held back from the public (A first????) | |
| |
AJ5TT
join:2003-08-17
Friendswood, TX
| Leaky Pipes in your yard? Ok.. here is a silly analogy but it is close.
Let us say that a company lays a pipeline across your back yard, in fact all your neighbors’ backyard. The pipe-line is going to be a great way to provide a service to all your neighbors. The company is in the testing phase and are only servicing a couple of people. You may even be interested in getting service from this pipeline, sounds great.
When they turn it on, the product starts to spews all over your backyard yet the person down the street is happy with the product. You say, hey! This crap is making a mess. You are not only unhappy about the mess but you get up and say it is against the law, stop it!!
The company comes by and drops a couple of rocks over the leak. The inspectors say hey, its not much, it is just a test. You still press that it is still making a mess, not as much but it is still there messing up your lawn. Your neighbors do not understand why you are so upset; they are getting the service and are happy.
You still know it is against the law but it still continues. You want the company fined since they will not shut down their pipeline. The inspectors bury your complaint.
If any company wishes to sell BPL and can package a product that does not leak RF, then great! Everyone benefits from another service. This issue is that they cannot stop the leaks. They just do not want you to know it. The product is the hype, not the inherent problems | |
| | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: Needs some improvement said by ctceo :
I'm for the service, but of course significant testing needs to be performed, and not interrupted by complaints. When a complaint is received the thing that needs to be done is active cooperation between complainant, and company(ies) involved. Forcing the BPL to shut down it's testing because of a few minor problems is not reason enough to allow for suspension, and neither is having every ham on the face of the planet complain when 1 or a few people are being mildly affected by a trial. They too need to understand that the technology is being tested. I fear that this sort of backwards track we are being forced into technologically, will hamper the deployment of needed infrastructure to maintain the future expansion of the coverage areas.
Something to remember here is that BPL lives by FCC Part 15 and dies by FCC Part 15. BPL isn't granted some special immunity because it's a method for delivering broadband and there's consumer demand for it. BPL has been granted more than enough leeway by the FCC which has stalled taking action on complaints. New technology alone does not justify ignoring laws that are on the books.
You comment about complaints getting in the way of a BPL trial is like saying cancer gets in the way of drug testing. BPL trials, while perceived as marketing exercises by most carriers, are actually a means of determining whether BPL can work within Part 15. The fact that all of the early trials had experimental licenses supports this. If complaints are filed, it shows that BPL has potential problems for coexisting with licensed services. The complaints are not the problem, the nature of the interfering service is. If BPL can't live within Part 15, then something new needs to be created and BPL needs to get in line for dedicated spectrum. As such, no BPL vendor in their right mind would do this because they know they couldn't acquire spectrum to do it, and there's already hundreds of megahertz of spectrum allocated to unlicensed wireless data, much better suited for the purpose.
If you do some research, you'll find that there has been cooperation. At Cedar Rapids, work was being done to attempt to fix the problems, but eventually the carrier voluntarily shut it down after weeks of work, but they were in violation of Part 15, period. There was some cooperation early on in Raleigh, before the carrier became irritated and decided to get out the lawyers.
BPL proponents seem to be annoyed at hams, but they've caused their own problems by attempting to launch a service using a regulatory loophole that was never intended to do what they want to do. The backwards track is BPL itself. Wired networks shouldn't affect wireless communications. Anyone with a basic knowledge of telecommunications knows the progression of wired networks over the past 100 years. We didn't start with fiber and work our way backwards to coax, twisted pair, and then on to bare copper conductors separated by big glass insulators. It was the other way around.
I see the FCC's R&O as merely prolonging the death of BPL. I'm sure there will be a flood of new deployments afterwards by carriers that have been cautious due to uncertainties, but market forces will ultimately take out BPL. BPL carriers have complained that hams searched out inteference. Now they won't have a leg to stand on when they build out and start affecting more home stations and start touching federal communications. But power utilties move at glacial speeds and you'll see the telcos and cable companies get the kick in the pants they need to further deploy. The interest in WiFi has been up significantly in the past six months, too. BPL buildouts will be mired in interference issues while cable, DSL, and wireless snatch up customers. | |
| | |
kgkjgkg
@verizon.ne
| Re: Needs some improvement Read that BPL is also considerably bothered by Ham Radio... apparently bitrates fall off dramtically as radio transmission power increases... BPL is further degraded according to radio emmission type... should be interesting to see if the hams survive this... | |
| | | 
Transmaster
Onward Through The Fog
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
edit:
September 25th, @11:52AM
| said by rf_engineer :
I see the FCC's R&O as merely prolonging the death of BPL. I'm sure there will be a flood of new deployments afterwards by carriers that have been cautious due to uncertainties, but market forces will ultimately take out BPL. BPL carriers have complained that hams searched out interference. Now they won't have a leg to stand on when they build out and start affecting more home stations and start touching federal communications. But power utilities move at glacial speeds and you'll see the telcos and cable companies get the kick in the pants they need to further deploy. The interest in WiFi has been up significantly in the past six months, too. BPL buildouts will be mired in interference issues while cable, DSL, and wireless snatch up customers.
This is exactly how I see things playing out. My anonymous
engineering friends at Qwest continue to tell me they expect interference issues with BPL when their DSL lines are on the same poles. Let's see how long the utilities last faced with legal teams from the Telco's.
--
»www.gobpl.com | |
| 
alex4life
Alex4life
Premium
join:2001-06-22
Delta, BC | How? How is BPL any better than any of the present broadband operations? | |
| w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO
|  After receiving more than 6,100 negative comments
Don't forget that out of those 6,100 comments, about 96% are against BPL. Now if the FCC does anything but shut it off once and for all it will only show how RF incompetent they have become. Why they forced all the good engineers out and replaced them with the crappy political types they now have that fall for anything that shows $signs and ignor good solid physics laws that have been known for ages. They will truely pay for it at BPL's death with their jobs. Why, talk about the US being behind other countries in broadband, this crappy technology will truely be multiple steps behind, not only in speed but in performance that will be marginal at best as long as no licensed service is transmitting nearby, then it would be non-usable. And to top it off, those internet users can complain to no one being bound by part 15 rules. Interference will be a two way street but they fail to talk about interference "to" BPL. That will also be terrible. And don't forget the Dept. of Homaland Security, they also use HF frequencies and when BPL causes them to not be able to hear their agents overseas with signals below the BPL noise floor, the XhXt will hit the fan in the FCC. The war on terrorism and the government's ability to obtain critical information from abroad will be greatly degraded. Heck BPL I believe was created in an arabic country, maybe this is another way the terrorists are trying to wreck this country's communications using the ignorant political and marketing types in the FCC, the power co.'s etc. This may be a terrorist attack! | |
| |
fcc sucks
@mindspring.com | Screw this The only good thing the fcc can do is SCRAP THIS WHOLE STUPID PROJECT!!!!!!!!!!!
They have started messign up our AM band already with this digi crap popping up all over!!!!!! | |
| | | David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| Re: Screw this Our digital radio – IBOC - is a proprietary kluge that only benefits corporate interests.
Elsewhere in the world folks are using DAB (Digital Audio Broadcasting) with a number of countries reporting significant rollouts;
»www.dab-digital-radio.com
For shortwave and the AM band Digital Radio Mondial is making significant progress;
»www.drm.org
Yet another example of how the FCC is failing the American public and running a corporate “candy store”. | |
| |
Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: After receiving more than 6,100 negative comments Here's a link to the latest the FCC has to say regarding BPL service and it's potential for interference on certain radio frequencies/bands. It's lengthy, but informative as to what the commission's viewpoint is on all of this.
» |
|
|
|
FCC Readies BPL Ruling
Needs some improvement