BPL Down Under

Is it me or is this 10 times better then the bpl in that states? Weren't they touting 768kbps here for bpl?

I feel like that number is probably wrong in the Oz PC World article....but maybe not:

quote:

---

Fietz said user download speeds had averaged 10Mbps, but this would change in the next month when the company installed new Head-end boxes that clock 200Mbps, from its hardware supplier Mitsubishi.

---

Funny how they conclude basically what every engineer (without a vested financial interest in BPL's success concludes here - that it's a niche solution at best):

quote:

---

However, he feels BPL has a niche place in the country in the future.

"I don't know what proportion of Australia's power grid will be covered by BPL in two years. But it won't be huge," he said.

---

The US sees lower speeds in trials because how we always do things opposite of other countries.

AC and DC, one is a lot better than the other for BPL.

They both worth, just US needs more equipment to "rig" it to work.

Im assuming down under they use DC?

240v 50cycle

DC would never be used for power transmission. AC is much easier to boost over long distances.

DC is used for it though, each has its advantages.

DC is better for higher population areas, thats why lots of european nations use it instead of AC

Where is it in widespread use? I thought DC was just experimental at this point...

Here's a table of power standards in each country

»kropla.com/electric2.htm

Actualy DC was used in the US for a while due to Edison. Problem is you would need generation station every few miles.

Teslar came up with AC to allow for running power for long distances. Much more efficent.

What? Europe uses 50 hertz and more homes per transformer than the US. How is this "opposite" or cause lower BPL speeds in the US?OK, which one is better? I can't recall seeing any news of a BPL system operating on a DC system Why would you need more equipment to rig a DC versus an AC system? You would have high voltage issues with each.

The debate concerning BPL down-under is virtually identical to the debate occurring here in ths States: worries abound BPL could interfere with the HF radio use of the Maritime Safety Authority, emergency services, and private industry

Alright. I've had enough 'debate'. Does BPL cause interference or not? There have been plenty of trials here, in the states and elsewhere to have compiled plenty of data on the [alleged, supposed, expected, assumed] RF interference.

Now, I won't pretend that I'm not rooting for this technology, or something like it, to succeed. I have family who live in very rural areas with no hope of Cable or DSL and Satellite is really not much of a cost/performance contender. However, as an engineer, although I too, intuitively 'feel' that BPL should cause some interference, we are in position to KNOW. I would have expected some pretty shrill outcry and anecdotal evidence about interference from Ham/Shortwave operators in the trial areas. I haven't and, believe me I've been following this very closely.

Jeeze! Enough FUD already. Both sides should put up or shut up!

(Full disclosure: I am a Power Distribution Engineer - not an RF Engineer)

agreed,
i want to see what interference is caused and how much interference instead of hearing it is being debated, i like the idea of BPL if it works and that is the key, without harmful interference, which in my case harmful would be considered disruption of emergency signals after a catastrophe.

Niplet,

In the article, the Energy company, Fietz, acknowledges interference.

"Country Energy's Fietz said he was aware of the side effects of BPL transmissions: "We have had a number of approaches from HF users. We are treating it [radio interference] seriously...""

As far as how much, I believe the ARRL has some documentation on how much interference. As far as documentation from providers, I believe it is kept classified due to the nature of the trials in the US.

John

i think everyone took what i posted the wrong way, i was not trying to say it did not cause interference, what i was trying to say was that i was for it if it DID NOT cause a disruption in emergencies, i have not researched this in a while and nor have i seen any reports on an emergency situation as of yet. i know for one if i/anyone was in an accident and the only way for me/victim to get help was from someone with a ham radio radioing in for help, then no it should not be allowed.

Well it's hard to say, because the boys in the FCC OET are so clever at sitting on complaints and cheerleading the technology. They haven't the slightest regard to how it impacts licensed users. It's a money machine! It's a talking point for politicians. Normally complaints go to the enforcement bureau. Instead, BPL complaints get special treatment.

There have been complaints in just about every trial area. The hams complain because the garbage it generates makes their communication impossible and literally pollutes the radio spectrum. To them, it's harmful interference, and by definition, should be turned off. Rightfully so, the measurements made clearly show noise well above the ambient noise level that would prevent any other signal from being heard. The FCC has decided that it's going to ignore its own rules and decide what is harmful. In one case, they pulled to the curb of the complaintant, listened to the noise, then drove away. Then they dismissed the complaint as being resolved. Literally. They never even made contact with the person.

The truth is it causes absolute interference when data is being transferred for anyone within about 1500'. Depending on the strand of power line and the licensee's antenna, it can be heard a mile away.

The Cottonwood, AZ trial continues to generate complaints and has been operating above part 15 limits. The FCC ignores complaints. That's the truth.

There's a small problem of accuracy with the claims being made by the BPL vendors. Some claim there are thousands of users. Some claim there are thousands of homes. The truth is it's not nearly as widespread as they would have you believe. There are pockets of it in dense areas. But does that mean subscribers? No. Idle systems do not generate noise.

Believe me, those that are hearing it are complaining. I've seen the complaints.

Actually you have a fact messed up, not many complaints have been in trial areas. I know for a fact one near me did not have a single complaint from its BPL trial.

»www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ ··· #Reports

Well at the Queanbeyan Trials in N.S.W. the interference was extremely strong. In fact NO OTHER signals could be copied.
It was a total wipeout. I did not even hear the Naval station
which is only a few miles away. Of course it may not have been transmitting, but Radio Australia on 6 Mhz was not heard either. No amateur signals on any of the bands could be coipied. Nothing, absolutely nothing, except the masses of carriers of the ODFM BPL was heard.

Incidently those who started discussing AC & DC should at least get some basic knowledge before jumping into debates like this.

Radio Frequency Zero Order Tank

»www.arrl.org/tis/info/HT ··· vid.html

There is no "debate" of if BPL causes interference or not, this has been demonstrated and proven in almost almost every BPL deployment to date. It is more a question of "what is an acceptable level of interference?"

The "truth" is that for short distance radio communication, you can still transmit over the noise created by BPL, but if you are communicating with someone in another country over an HF band, a BPL deployment in your close proximity is going to have a noticeable impact on your communication.

Also, it is not like the data is just thrown on the line back at the power plant and it "just works(TM)", it is much more complicated then that and there is lots of additional equipment involved and fiber is run most of the distance anyway. It is pretty safe to say that if you don't have an option of Cable or DSL, then you won't have an option of BPL either.

The sentiments expressed in this statement are mutually exclusive: you can't have missed the evidence presented to date (frequently ref'd on this very forum) AND claim to have been following this "very closely."

I don't like bpl and i listen what the arrl is saying and what other people have say if it worked like dsl or cable then no one would be talking about but it doesn't yet, maybe never. But some of things posted here saying are wrong things i've been a ham radio operator for the past 25 years. Interference on ham bands in trial areas could be some part of bpl, but not all we are in a low cycle of a 10 year solar cycle and alot of hf bands are noise dead or are hard to hear at this time. But interference also comes from other sources like, big screen tv, computers, wireless networks, power stations, cars, trucks, the ground, the weather, microwaves, and cell phone towers. if bpl can be fixed great i'm for that. if something fastest and less of interference is created more to it.

»www.arrl.org

»www.fcc.gov

All I am hearing is same old crap. I seems as though the arguments put forth claiming BPL does not cause interference are in the realm of "if there is no one in the forest to hear a tree fall did it make a sound". As for the DC/AC argument please read your history Edison and Westinghouse fought out this battle over a hundred years ago Westinghouse and AC won. This whole BPL thing is sounding more and more like as broken record. How many ways can you frame your arguments claiming BPL is the greatest, the level of bovine scatology is getting so deep I am going to have to switch to chest waders.