 |
 | 
Transmaster
Onward Through The Fog
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Re: It's all about pockets. clueless in Santa Maria  | |
|
| | |
Transmaster
Onward Through The Fog
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
| True Yes this is true the FCC continues to blow off the interference issue. They continue to flatulate about BPL being a major provider and they are still fantasising the it will be the rural provider.
--
Remember safe sex does not prevent crabs. | |
|
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | Re: True the FCC needs BPL to be a "viable competitor" in the broadband space so they can continue to spout the fiction that there is "broadband competition" in the U.S. | |
|
| | 
Blasterbator
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Jackson, MS | Re: True Define competition...
Every state where I've lived or have friends in in recent years has DSL, Cable Modem and Wireless service available (satellite is also available, but I'd have to be pretty desperate to consider that a viable option). | |
|
| | | 
ShadowMastr
Master Of All Shadows
join:2001-09-01
Fort Pierce, FL
 ·Comcast
 ·CenturyTel Inc.
| Re: True... NOT said by Blasterbator  :Define competition... Every state where I've lived or have friends in in recent years has DSL, Cable Modem and Wireless service available (satellite is also available, but I'd have to be pretty desperate to consider that a viable option). Your statement is very partially true..... every state may have 1 or more of those options in *A* part of the state, but there is NO state that has one or more of those options in *EVERY* part of the state.
There are a HUGE amount of areas where there is zero broadband options still, and it will continue this way because so many people in the non rural areas just can't comprehend why 'farmers' need broadband anyway..... can't seem to understand that 'farmers' are a small portion of rural settlers.....
What ever happened to the dream of working from home, no matter where you live?? I'm doing so in the Ozarks in Arkansas, but because I don't want to live in a 'city' or 'town', I have to do so with dialup.....
Satellite doesn't count, that only works if you want to pay a large monthly fee to get email and surf websites occasionally, most times at slower speeds than dialup....
--
Follow Your Bliss -- Joseph Cambell
| |
|
| 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| said by Transmaster :... and they are still fantasising the it will be the rural provider.
Yeah, and the really annoying thing is that they end up with "demo" projects that all use BPL for "last mile" connections in urban areas, while people don't realize that trying to use it over long distances in rural areas is a wholly different application.
Why is rural different? Well, when you are cramming a broadband signal down a wire designed for something other than broadband, there are significant losses with increasing distance. (Hint: consider DSL.) Additionally, there are transformers to consider, and the wire cable is even less suited to high-frequency transmission than twisted pair copper. (Yes, I know you thought that wasn't possible, but it is.)
Anybody got any results from any "long-haul" trials of BPL?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| Re: True > Anybody got any results from any "long-haul" trials of
> BPL?
In central VA, IBEC (a BPL manufacturer) and the local rural cooperative are running a commercial BPL deployment. They have reported that they are sending a BPL signal down 13 miles of overhead lines, using repeaters, of course. The repeaters are purportedly as much as a mile apart, but a deployment map that shows the locations of the units shows the typical 1000 feet or so as the spacing for most of them. I have no specific data on any testing, although having talked with a couple of users there, they have been generally satisfied with the performance. One user complained about reliability.
With rural lines, they can generally go farther along the line than they can do in urban environs. There are far fewer transformers, taps and other lossy configurations, if they can clean up all the power-line noise.
Ed Hare, W1RFI | |
|
|
justbits
More fiber than ATT can handle
Premium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL | URL correction for Ed Hare's comment »Re: RF Polluter | |
|
Safemaster
Premium
join:2004-01-18
Loxahatchee, FL | BPL is good for me,me me me me me Go BPL,I hope it spreads like wildfire. | |
|
| 
somewarez
@viacom.com | Re: BPL is good for me,me me me me me why do we even bother with the nerds with their walkie talkies? upgrade to digital and you wont need your analog toys. next they'll be pressuring us to go back to aerial tv antennas despite it being able to receive hd content. cmon! | |
|
| | 
drjim
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
Torrance, CA
clubs: | Re: BPL is good for me,me me me me me Why do we even bother allowing anon morons to post here when they obviously don't know what they're talking about?
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering. | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
drjim
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
Torrance, CA
clubs: | Re: BPL is good for me,me me me me me too-shay! I'll give you that one! | |
|
| | N3EVL
join:2004-12-13
Shrewsbury, MA
| said by somewarez :
...upgrade to digital and you wont need your analog toys...
I want to hear the science and the engineering behind this statement - what exactly is it that your proposed "upgrade" to digital offers that will permit the reception of HF signals that are otherwise unreadable in the presence of BPL interference? | |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA
| Also why I don't trust the use of white spaces. If the FCC refuses to deal with interference issues anytime the magic word "broadband" is used we can't trust either BPL or the use of white spaces to not have unforeseen negative consequences. I don't care how much someone is against government, if radio interference isn't effectively regulated a lot of things just won't work. | |
|
|
|
|
FCC Ignoring BPL Interference?
·