1 edit |
Let someone else pay for itSure, go ahead and spend more money that you don't have.
There are way too many questions around this technology that need to be answered before they (CA) spend any money on it. Let some other state that isn't laying off policemen and firefighters foot the research bill. |
|
trinetw
join:2004-09-19
Thousand Oaks, CA |
trinetw
Member
2004-Dec-13 11:55 am
The budget problem isn't that bad. Were not struggling to survive here. That aside, I don't think BPL is too necessary here, as a majority of the population gets DSL or cable. |
|
| |
to TimSpencer
Re: fiscal geniusWha? I thought Kalifornakastan had plenty of money. Didn't they just approve $3 billion in bonds for stem cell research by a 2:1 majority?? Surely those peeps would beg to sign up for another tax increase. lol, I think we should play them for suxorz and let them foot all the research billz. More power to ya CA!!! you foot the bill and I will reap the reward. |
|
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD |
moonpuppy (banned)
Member
2004-Dec-13 12:07 pm
If you think the HAMS were loud at the other sites...wait until you hear the California ones. There are a ton of them out there and they will voice their opinions on this. Seems Susan Kennedy is looking for a job in the telecommunications or utility field.  |
|
 Che8Intel Inside
join:2002-05-31
Sacramento, CA |
Che8
Member
2004-Dec-13 12:11 pm
Broadband over powerlines? Stupid idea.Broadband over power lines is NOT necessary, rediculous and dangerous. I am a licensed ham, and have been since before broadband existed. Broadband is fine as is. What should be CRIMINAL, is to interfere with long distance radio communications which have served the world so well in times of war and disaster. |
|
 Geddy
join:2004-12-02
Westerly, RI |
Geddy
Member
2004-Dec-13 12:20 pm
it would be worthwhile if they were able to bring the prices down to compete.
It is far from criminal not to have it though. I think much more research needs to be done. |
|
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD |
moonpuppy (banned)
Member
2004-Dec-13 12:31 pm
said by Geddy:it would be worthwhile if they were able to bring the prices down to compete. It is far from criminal not to have it though. I think much more research needs to be done. First off, prices for DSL may have come down BUT cable just raises the speeds (which DSL can't do due to distance.) BPL is far worse in that respect and can't compete on distance. As for it being criminal not to have it, the spectrum pollution put out by BPL is criminal enough. My guess is that the power companies will put out the cheapest solution and try to say there is no interference. Hope California can pay for the lawsuits. |
|
 aaronfitz
Premium Member
join:2004-03-06
Cedar Rapids, IA |
to Che8
said by Che8:Broadband over power lines is NOT necessary, rediculous and dangerous. I am a licensed ham, and have been since before broadband existed. Broadband is fine as is. What should be CRIMINAL, is to interfere with long distance radio communications which have served the world so well in times of war and disaster. Stupid idea? Hardly. It's a rather genius idea, really. Right now the technology is being tested. Sure, it has interference issues. But if they fix them, wouldn't you agree that it's going to be useful? |
|
 ctceo
Premium Member
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN |
to TimSpencer
Re: Let someone else pay for itThe questions have already been answered. The technology has already begun to get deployed, without interference problems once they get bad lines replaced, and equipment working to par. I don't see what the hold up is. |
|
| ctceo |
to aaronfitz
Re: Broadband over powerlines? Stupid idea.Its already past the "test" phase. The only reason new areas have to start as "test" beds is because they cannot guarantee that the service once powered up won't create interference due to oversensitive radio equipment, or bad wiring/equipment. |
|
 Daishi7
Premium Member
join:2002-02-24
1 edit |
to aaronfitz
No, because power is stepped down enough at the pole tranformers (ed :P) that they can't run data over the main line. They have to run all the data on fiber almost all the way. I don't know how many homes passed per transistor, but for the most part they are running fiber to the pole, then offloading on power. This practice is nearly pointless, because once they are that close they might as well skip the power part and use 802.11 wireless. |
|
 tapeloopNot bad at all, really.
Premium Member
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One |
tapeloop
Premium Member
2004-Dec-13 1:08 pm
history repeatingBPL? Sheesh. Didn't the PUC learn anything from that whole Enron debacle?  |
|
 Bill
Premium Member
join:2001-12-09 |
Bill
Premium Member
2004-Dec-13 1:16 pm
Where are we suppose to get the money....The state is having to cut services to try and eliminate debt.
How can we possibly afford any sort of government run broadband service?
If this comes up on a ballot, I'd definitely vote no. |
|
| |
I support a few of these clients--BPL's and it seems to work solidy, and remote users love it, because they either can get any access or just dial-up and it will blow dial-up out of the water. This should be huge! |
|
JPCass
join:2001-01-23
Denver, CO |
to Daishi7
Re: Broadband over powerlines? Stupid idea.said by Daishi7:I don't know how many homes passed per transistor, but for the most part they are running fiber to the pole, then offloading on power. This practice is nearly pointless, because once they are that close they might as well skip the power part and use 802.11 wireless. Interesting point. Could that be their longterm strategy, to get all the infrastructure in place for delivery on their own wires, and then once they have their foot in the door, argue to be allowed to use the infrastructure already in place to deliver by wireless? |
|
N3EVL
join:2004-12-13
Shrewsbury, MA |
to ctceo
Re: Let someone else pay for itsaid by ctceo:The questions have already been answered. The technology has already begun to get deployed, without interference problems once they get bad lines replaced, and equipment working to par. I don't see what the hold up is. You're partially correct... The questions have already been answered and the answers were: a) The technology is bad. b) The interference is real and is a byproduct of the equipment working as designed. c) The interference is due to the laws of physics and as such cannot be wished away. The fact that the technology has already begun to be deployed doesn't alter the fact that it's intrinsically bad technology. |
|
| |
to ctceo
said by ctceo:The questions have already been answered. The technology has already begun to get deployed, without interference problems once they get bad lines replaced, and equipment working to par. I don't see what the hold up is. A "good" powerline radiates just as well as a "bad" one. You're confusing power transmission noise with BPL emissions. At what site is the equipment working to par? There's been emissions measured and/or audio communications receiver recordings made on most every BPL site in the country. |
|
| rf_engineer |
to ctceo
Re: Broadband over powerlines? Stupid idea.said by ctceo:Its already past the "test" phase. The only reason new areas have to start as "test" beds is because they cannot guarantee that the service once powered up won't create interference due to oversensitive radio equipment, or bad wiring/equipment. It's also because power utilities move at glacial speeds and there's still regulatory uncertainty. "Oversensitive radio equipment" is a matter of opinion. Equipment that communicates around the globe with low power levels needs to be able to detect weak signals close to the noise floor. It's funny how people on this forum bust on Amateur Radio communications being outdated, meanwhile hams use advanced communications equipment more sensitive than most lab equipment. This illustrates a problem with BPL. The carriers and manufacturers don't understand the nature of HF radio communications and have built a system totally incompatible with the spectrum in which it emits energy. Now that they have sunk costs in a flawed system and can't turn back, engineers step aside, and PR people and lawyers are needed to push it. |
|
| |
BPL has been tested in CA by PG&E and ATT. . . and it failed with an F grade; » www.arrl.org/news/storie ··· 00/?nc=1ATT went on to link up with the WiMax folks; » AT&T Embraces WiMaxCommissioner Susan Kennedy refers to BPL as the “forth wire” a drop in one position since the lesser Powell called BPL the “third wire”. No mention by the Commissioner of FTTH which is clearly the way forward. |
|
w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO |
to ctceo
Re: Broadband over powerlines? Stupid idea.You don't even need an "oversensitive" receiver to have a interference problem from BPL. Even a 50 year old shortwave receiver will be rendered useless by it. BPL is still in the "test" phase. Why do you think the FCC only issues part 5 experimental licenses to the test sites so far? It's because if a part 5 licensee running a part 15 device interferes with any licensed services, they will have to be shut down. |
|
w2co
1 edit |
to Daishi7
First off the poles have no transistors, they have transformers. Secondly Power is not stepped down, the voltage is. |
|
| w2co |
to aaronfitz
You said "But if they fix them" this is not possible to do considering an open wire with an hf signal applied will radiate period. This is in physics 101 and you can't change physics, so it will never be "fixed" until they use a shielded line and that sure as hell ain't gonna happen. |
|
mbkownsGot Bandwidth?
join:2003-07-01
Valley Center, CA |
:) :PDown with the ham freaks  |
|
w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO |
to David95037
Re: BPL has been tested in CA by PG&E and ATTYou said "the way forward" the way forward would be to outlaw BPL right now nationwide and waste no more time or money on it. Spend it on something that would work well FIBER. You guys are gonna hate the words "I told you so" when we all have to pay for this waste of time and money in the form of higher utility bills. If you don't have broadband and can't live without it for a while more then move, if you do already have broadband and are pro-BPL you know very little. |
|
w2co
2 edits |
to mbkowns
Re: :) :PDown with the P0rn freaks! |
|
| w2co |
to rustednuggs
Re: Where are we suppose to get the money....So far no "remote users" are getting it, and they probably never will. Sure it's a great idea if it worked without the inherent interference to licensed services. But the fact is that BPL will always interfere as long as it uses open wires to propagate the signal. Don't get caught up with the political bsers who claim it will be deployed in remote areas. That will never happen. They just want their money back before the investors and the nation sees it's a failure. |
|
 SuntopWolfrider Elf
Premium Member
join:2000-03-23
Fairfield, MT |
to w2co
Re: :) :PDown with the insanity |
|
 radio2
join:2004-06-28
Worcester, MA |
radio2
Member
2004-Dec-13 7:53 pm
HAM RADIO = GOOD
BPL = BAD |
|
etopia
join:2004-12-13
Los Angeles, CA |
etopia
Member
2004-Dec-13 10:53 pm
correction for Commissioner Kennedy comment linkActually, the audio clip containing California Public Utilities Commissioner Susan Kennedy's comments about the "criminality" of there not being any big BPL deployments in California can be found at this URL: » www.etopiamedia.net/empn ··· 212.htmlFor an interview with BPL equipment maker Ambient Corporation's President and CEO, John Joyce, in which he says that BPL will not be allowed to generate any "harmful interference" with amateur radio operations, go to: » www.etopiamedia.net/bplw ··· 212.htmlFor more about broadband over power line in general, go to: » www.etopiamedia.net/bplw ··· 12.html/ |
|
Daishi7
Premium Member
join:2002-02-24 |
to w2co
Re: Broadband over powerlines? Stupid idea.I know the difference between a transistor and a transformer, it was mistake. You seem to have read up on this so I have a question. What spectrum does BPL transmit in, and what is the total available bandwidth for the forward and return paths (eg. what modulation is used)? Also, how many homes are usually on a transformer? |
|
