 
Mactron
el camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
| Let's hope so "Should the long list of failed worldwide trials have curbed his enthusiasm?"
Lets hope so, and move on to BB technologies that actually work in the real world.;)
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Aldous Huxley | |
|  | bumper2
join:2003-08-08
San Jacinto, CA | Re: Let's hope so It was worth a try. Those of us that live out in the sticks and have cable and phone companies laughing at us when we ask for service, were hoping it would work. | |
| | | David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA
 ·Be There
| Re: Let's hope so said by bumper2  :
It was worth a try. Those of us that live out in the sticks and have cable and phone companies laughing at us when we ask for service, were hoping it would work.
The FCC should (and could) require that that the phones companies treat all their customers equally.
Five minutes with Google shows the long history of BPL failures, to try here in the US shows the total stupidity of the FCC. | |
| | | | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Let's hope so If that is the case then why aren't the companies saying so? Are they embarrassed? Are they shutting down for another reason?
Face it. The interference was there. No denying it.
Add, to that, the financial costs associated with deploying it to all those rural customers they promised to serve. 
Doesn't change the fact it was a bad idea to begin with.  | |
| | | | | 
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by ctceo :
Notice that when spending 5 minutes googling for Failed BPL trials all of the negative press comes from HAM supporters, or sites that are associated with the ARRL or it's friends. Most BPL trials are cancelled due to poor equipment that a company is not interested in repairing, those trials that were cancelled that had ideal and well kept wires/insulators were cancelled because of direct complaints from the ARRL, it's lobbyists, or the unlucky fellow stuck being surrounded by the trial area grid 
Penn Yan, Cedar Rapids, and Charlotte/Raleigh were all Amperion sites with new out-of-the-box equipment and were high profile areas presumably tweaked and fine tuned by the vendors and carriers involved. The complaints were all based on your old friend, Title 47, Part 15, and you can read some of them on the web in fact. Maybe you'd realize by now this goes beyond fixing broken insulators and Ham Radio. Or is it still Amateur Radio's fault, even after the interference is measured and proven to exist?
quote:
And also notice when you google for 5 minutes, there are absolutely NO Law Enforcement agencies or Emergency Services complaining about the interference, Only HAM'ers and their buddies??? Hmmm. I wonder why...
Me, too. Imagine how fast the trial areas would be shutting down if there were public safety complaints, or if the effects to aircraft communications outlined in the NTIA report were surveyed further. It's probably good for the BPL industry that APCO or some other organizations haven't gotten heavily involved. It's better this stops now before widespread deployment leads to bigger problems, beyond interference with Ham Radio.
Ctceo, you worked on a BPL system, Manassas if I recall correctly. Did you see the problem with passing trucks interrupting the BPL service like was mentioned in this article »www.newsobserver.com/business/nc···21c.html ? I'm trying to figure out if it's impacting the WiFi portion of the system, or if there's something weird with the proximity of trucks to the power lines. Who knows, maybe it's even ingress interference from CB. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Let's hope so said by ctceo :
To date, I have received no complaints from Emergency Service officials in any area that has had a trial cancelled or continued, and that is the first thing they would do if it were an issue.
So you are now the FCC? Complaints must go through you?
BPL providers, like you, still say there is no interference problem. Not really an un-biased opinion. That coupled with the fact that you, yourself, refuse to divulge any testing methods or results while the HAM community does both.
said by ctceo :
So we know at least that they are not receiving significant interference or don't have a problem with what is being generated. So it seems that the only complaints come from those scanning for such iunterference... What this tells me is that based on the complaints of HAM operators utilising their right to voice a complaint with the FCC is the major hurdle here.
YOU may say there is no interference but the data proves otherwise. For you to debate this issue, you need to provide supporting data which you have refused to provide.
said by ctceo :
Now we wait for the FCC to ring in on official standards once testing is complete, and spectrum re-allocation occurs (if it will be necessary)
Spectrum allocation? Care to explain? You think the FCC is going to tell all the HAMs to leave the HF spectrum? You do understand that this will violate international treaties concerning the HF spectrum.
For a guy who is so against the government, you sure seem to want the FCC to protect you. | |
| | | | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by ctceo :
To date, I have received no complaints from Emergency Service officials in any area that has had a trial cancelled or continued, and that is the first thing they would do if it were an issue.
This has been asked before, but has anyone in the BPL industry engaged public safety to see if there actually was interference to their services? I haven't seen any evidence of it. There's been several Amateurs that experienced the interference, but couldn't identify what is was. Once information was out on what BPL was and what the interference looked like, these people popped up, noting they where hearing the interference for months.
quote:
So we know at least that they are not receiving significant interference or don't have a problem with what is being generated.
This is the old "we have no complaints, so there is no interference" stance. That was disproven last year.
quote:
So it seems that the only complaints come from those scanning for such iunterference... What this tells me is that based on the complaints of HAM operators utilising their right to voice a complaint with the FCC is the major hurdle here.
This is basically the same thing Progress was whining about, you "searched out" the interference, so it's not really interference and you don't have a valid complaint. The thing these providers have to understand is that if you are conducting a trial, you have to take into account everything you're going to find in a real-world full scale deployment. Amateurs and other HF users are mobile. Also, while a 50 home deployment may not "touch" any HF users in the immediate vicinity, a wide scale deployment will. I think Progress and others wanted a successful test in an unrealistically small, controlled environment that wasn't scientifically resprentative of a large real world deployment. But, it's easier to blame lack of planning or poor technology on the messenger that brought the kinks in the plan to light. Amateurs said there would be interference before these trail areas went up, based on age old engineering knowledge and basic physics. The BPL industry said the claims were baseless, and there was no proof. So, Amateurs went to the areas and made measurements that proved interference. Now Amateurs seem to be guilty of "entrapment" or something to that effect.
quote:
Now we wait for the FCC to ring in on official standards once testing is complete, and spectrum re-allocation occurs (if it will be necessary)
Spectrum re-allocation is a pipe dream and not based in reality for all the reasons we've said before (cost, time, no other spectrum available with the properties of HF, etc.). Read the NTIA report again, or read it for the first time. Note all the frequencies they want to protect that would have to be moved, and realize they don't even mention Amateur frequencies in their list. Spectrum reallocation for BPL would be political suicide for anyone at the Commission. And if BPL needed spectrum for itself, why hasn't anyone pursued a dedicated allocation? The answer is simple -- a wired network shouldn't need allocated wireless spectrum. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 
tenbase
join:2000-07-19
Alexandria, VA
| Re: Let's hope so What a non-answer that was.
In one breath you vilify amateurs for deliberately seeking out interference (as if it needed to be searched for), while trumpeting the claim that no public service officials have reported impact to their services (how many PSA's use HF and low VHF in the trial areas?).
Then you turn around and claim legalities prevent you from refuting rf_engineers assertions.
Must be a nice cozy position, being able to take pot shots whenever you please, and then hide behind "legalities" imposed by your "clients" and dodge the bullets whenever fire is returned.
--
I would kill everyone on this forum for a drop of sweet beer.. | |
| | | | | | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
2 edits | said by ctceo :
Twist what I said into whatever you will. My response on this thread was based on data we received from our own field trials, and not those of others. I am not disputing nor did I say anywhere that the interference issues that have been reported were false or mis-represented. The issue is that when asked emergency services that we have contacted about interference issues, they either did not respond to our phone calls, or have responded and quite clearly stated that the interference is minimal or non-existent to their services. I agree that the technology needs more testing, but testing cannot be done appropriately when the pursuing companies either abandon their tests, or perform incomplete trials. As for the data relevancy question, You are asking me to divulge information that was included in a legal document protected by law to be non-disclosable. I would have preferred that that information to be public myself, but that is up to the client I work for, not me.
Twisting your words? You said this :
quote:
To date, I have received no complaints from Emergency Service officials in any area that has had a trial cancelled or continued, and that is the first thing they would do if it were an issue
You've only claimed to work on Manassas, and that trial hasn't been cancelled. There's been only three trials that have been shut down: Penn Yann, Cedar Rapids, and Raleigh. I don't want to twist your words, so please tell us if you mean you worked on these three trials as well. Or did you mean you never received calls in Manassas? Please clarify.
You said:
quote:
I am not disputing nor did I say anywhere that the interference issues that have been reported were false or mis-represented
But had previously written:
quote:
What this tells me is that based on the complaints of HAM operators utilising their right to voice a complaint with the FCC is the major hurdle here
So if you're not claiming the reports are false, your beef is with the "HAM operators utilising their right to voice a complaint"?
quote:
I will not commit a crime simply because you think I should make the data public.
Most every time you come here you drop items that we're supposed to accept as fact, but then you hide behind an NDA or go on your "commit a crime" rant. What's the use of making claims that no one, not even you can verify? If the Amateur community made claims and then said we couldn't reveal the details because it was confidential, you would probably scream bloody murder. It would be unfair for someone involved in a BPL trial to come in here and make claims against BPL based on information that was NDA protected, IMO.
There's no proof area emergency services were engaged beyond a phone call or voice mail to someone. You can't disclose whether you actually provided details of the frequency plan you were using or the geographical coverage area, or if you're even using area public safety frequencies. You can't mention whether technical staff from these agencies actually took field measurements.
The details of your alleged work have never seen the light of day (according to you), and it's not even provable you're even involved in a field trial. You have yet to reveal your real name. If you were as ethical as you'd like us to believe, you wouldn't allude to NDA protected material here. If you were as involved as you claim, you wouldn't be anonymous, IMO. I really don't care whether or not you make data public -- it's a matter of principle.
| |
| | | | | | | | | | 
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
 ·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·Comcast
·AT&T Midwest
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
| Re: Let's hope so tenbase:
"What a non-answer that was". Hmmm. I've heard this one a bunch before. You make the assumption through a carefree interpretation of what I said, that I "Vilify amateurs". Not once did I say or imply that they were villains or doing such acts, this was your own undertaking. As for taking pot shots, I consider them opinions, derived directly from observations of fact. Pretend what you will.
rf_engineer:
By saying "If you were as ethical as you would like us to believe,..." you are stating that I am either less ethical, or not ethical which can only be interpreted as a direct flame, shame on you.
Just because I've worked on one field trial does not mean that I have, am, or intend on working on others, and last I checked it is not your choice to determine wether or not I state this publicly, or at all for that matter.
To clarify the Manassas question.
Yes I worked on it, for a total of 144 hours. I have contacted By Mail, Phone, and e-mail Law Enforcement and Emergency services in the area to assert the impact of any interference that was being received, and to date NONE of those agencies have declared that there was any interference noticeable on their equipment. Squelch control and pilot tones are good things.
And YES, I have worked on 2 other BPL trials one has yet to be made public, and the other was discontinued, That is all I am going to say at the moment.
I apologize for the statement "HAM operators utilising their right to voice a complaint", After reviewing this statement I can see where it could be easily wrongly interpreted. To clarify: The paperwork, and legal concerns associated with the type of complaints lodged by concerned members of the amateur radio and other RF dependent persons and agencies along with the sheer volume of such accounts has led to substantial "Aversion" in investors seeking to perfect this technology through trials.
Only when I am confronted with breaking the law will I state that I cannot divulge information. Perhaps with these posts and a few members of the interested engineers and companies/persons involved in BPL and it's trials will show them that making information public during trials is the way to go in the future, But that is not for me to decide.
If and when details become public I will surely post what I am able to type or scan here if they are already not available. Rest Assured. As for future comments or posts, I do not post false or misleading material purposely, any incidents past/present/future are either mis-interpretations, or poor wording on my part.
Again my apologies if my statements were taken in wrong context as that was not my intention.
--
ASUS SK8N nForce3 - 8GB PC2700 - AXP 64 3400+ - nVidia 6800 Ultra w/512mb - CL Audigy 2 PP - WD SATA150 36GB + Hitachi GST 250GB - Plextor PX708A + Sony CRX300A - Dual 600 Watt PSU's. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
tenbase
join:2000-07-19
Alexandria, VA
| Re: Let's hope so Ctceo, I'm not into whitewashing, I call it like I see it. You have made a number of totally uncalled-for ad hominem attacks on amateur radio operators in the past and frankly I see no reason to play games with semantics.
Feel free to make any carefree interpretations of this post you wish. Your previous posts on this subject speak for themselves.
--
I would kill everyone on this forum for a drop of sweet beer.. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
1 edit | said by ctceo :
By saying "If you were as ethical as you would like us to believe,..." you are stating that I am either less ethical, or not ethical which can only be interpreted as a direct flame, shame on you.
If the shoes fits, wear it. You have a history of postings with claims that can't be verified and you can't back up what you say by answering questions because of an NDA. How ethical is it to make claims in public you can't back up?
quote:
Just because I've worked on one field trial does not mean that I have, am, or intend on working on others, and last I checked it is not your choice to determine wether or not I state this publicly, or at all for that matter.
In your "I haven't received any calls", you set yourself up as an authority on the issue. I asked you to back up your implication that you are an authority. If you don't want to be asked to back up what you say or elaborate, don't post in a public forum.
quote:
Yes I worked on it, for a total of 144 hours. I have contacted By Mail, Phone, and e-mail Law Enforcement and Emergency services in the area to assert the impact of any interference that was being received, and to date NONE of those agencies have declared that there was any interference noticeable on their equipment. Squelch control and pilot tones are good things.
But you can't give any details as to whether you're actually using their frequencies in the systems you worked on. You also can't answer what information you actually gave them. For all we know, they simply asked their dispatchers if they had any problems that day and they said "No.". In essence, what I'm saying is that we have no way of knowing whether your test or conclusion was scientific or thorough.
quote:
Only when I am confronted with breaking the law will I state that I cannot divulge information.
I recommend you don't get involved in debates that are going to inevitably end with you stating you can't divulge information as it wrecks your standing in this forum. It's your choice and this is merely my opinion, and you can do what you want. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
·magicjack.com
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
·AT&T Midwest
·HughesNet Satellit..
| Re: Let's hope so Assume and interpret what you will. It is clear that you don't understand my reasons, and even clearer that you don't respect a persons right to voice opinions wether their based on fact or not.
Just because the shoe fits doesn't mean that I have to wear it, that's stereotyping. All of my postings are based on fact, or derived through the logic process, if you do not understand logic then I suggest refraining from commenting on things you fail to understand through your own shortsightedness. Ethical or not, I am allowed to post what I know to be true wether or not I have proof. When it is presented you have an inconclusive-itis attack as if you don't wish to believe what I say even though I agree with every posting here, just not always the method or opinions voiced, but that is my right as is yours.
You interpretation of assigning me as "An authority" is false. I have not insinuated or stated that I was an authority, nor do I. I simply state that I have talked closely with agencies that may be impacted by interference issues, and all of them through multiple communications have voiced that they were able to communicate without hindrance through the trial in question. If you would like to find this out for yourself go ask them yourself. I was being paid to do it. It is my right and obligation to post in a public forum in which I am expected to be a contributing member, just because you do not like my method of posting is no reason for talking down to me, or playing down my legitimacy here. I do not talk down to others unless they do the same to me, and in the case of legitimacy I always try to assist in clearing up speculation with what I know which may not always be 100% accurate.
Again the details issues as I have said are not my property, this would be like asking NASA to discuss with me methods which they have used to secure government communications with Jo Shmoe in a side street cafe. What is private knowledge is just that, Why do you fail to respect those guidelines?
Again I did not get just one "No" over the phone. I was present at the testing sites, talking with employees of agencies, traveling with them on some instances using equipment to analyse the interference when there was RF communication taking place, using all equipment at my disposal. Some was my equipment some was on loan. Methods were all the usual types used in a field trial of it's kind, it's not that hard to figure out.
I will take your recommendation into consideration, however I have a duty to state what I have seen, or know to be true to the best of my ability regardless. Every bit of information I am able to divulge to the community is helpful in one fashion or another. Just because you don't approve or like the information posted is not any reason to downplay it, or assume that it is false or start telling other people to not listen to it, You have a right to not respond to my posts, and Since it's obvious that You can't agree to disagree, but I can; You should refrain from making requests of me that you yourself have stated I cannot answer.
--
ASUS SK8N nForce3 - 8GB PC2700 - AXP 64 3400+ - nVidia 6800 Ultra w/512mb - CL Audigy 2 PP - WD SATA150 36GB + Hitachi GST 250GB - Plextor PX708A + Sony CRX300A - Dual 600 Watt PSU's. | |
| 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Wonder why it failed? Aside from the problems with Amateur Radio Operators, this seemed to be a pretty good idea. Was it just the problems with Ham Radio that killed the trial? Or was it a lack of interest on the part of the customers or what?
--
9/11 was the best thing to happen to Michael Moore
Win another one for the Gipper! Bush/Cheney 2004 | |
| | 
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Wonder why it failed? said by pnh102 :
Was it just the problems with Ham Radio that killed the trial?
The High Frequency (HF) communications bands are used by all long-range communication systems (with the exception of sat), aircraft, nautical, commercial, short-wave broadcasters, emergency communications, military, Loran Navigation, etc.... Interference in these bands effects thousands of services many of them critical to health, safety, and security.
Until BPL can co-exist with these services IE not drown them out with interference; it will not fly!
HF Communications rely on ionospheric "skip" for it's long-range capabilities. This means that even a very weak signal (Known as QRP) can bounce and be received on the other side of the planet. From the tests so far, it seems BPL will have a hard time eliminating all of it's interference across the 3-30 mhz bands, making it an unusable technology for a while to come.
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. | |
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Wonder why it failed? You're absolutely right... with BPL causing these kinds of problems I would not want it anywhere near my town. | |
| | | | David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA | Re: Wonder why it failed? BPL uses the shortwave frequencies – the world’s communication “commons”. Skip will take BPL thousands of miles and a rollout of BPL in the US will pollute the shortwave for most of the planet. | |
| | | | | 
91439306
15,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16
New Milford, CT
| Re: Wonder why it failed? said by David95037 :
BPL uses the shortwave frequencies – the world’s communication “commons”. Skip will take BPL thousands of miles and a rollout of BPL in the US will pollute the shortwave for most of the planet.
Your comment triggers an interesting thought: If the FCC failed to prevent this spectrum pollution, it is quite possible that a number of foreign governments would call us on treaty violations. I remember one reason they used against the proposed Low Power FM service was the claim that these short-range broadcasts on the 3m band would disrupt foreign airwaves. Now when we have a situation where a very REAL danger of turning the foreign and domestic airwaves into a mass of noise and the FCC is doing a flip-flop on their former position. Ironic, at best.
Should the US adopt BPL, I expect we'll be hearing a lot of complaints from our EU neighbors.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: »www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
'»www.dv-clips.com
'»www.mwcomms.com
'»www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
| |
| | Estragon
join:2003-06-20
Greenville, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
·MV Communications,..
| It doesn't look like anyone is talking. But follow the indirect link to this article: Progress ends its broadband trial
"Overall, this has been a successful test for us," said Lisa Myers, vice president of energy delivery solutions for Progress. "We have gathered valuable information about broadband over power lines and its potential."
...
Kilbourne of the United Power Line Council said that although the technology is increasingly reliable, its commercial application remains a challenge.
"Technically it's feasible. The harder question is how do you build a business case for it," Kilbourne said. "We're talking about a whole new business for utility companies."
| |
| | | | | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
1 edit | Re: Wonder why it failed? These BPL "Voodoo Engineers remind me of mental health workers at VA Hospitals. A Vet goes crazy and shoots up
his house and takes pot shots at the police. The Vet in question is shot but lives. His Psychologist in his progress note states "well this is important, while he shot up the Cop's he didn't come shoot me. I view this as important progress.
--
»www.gobpl.com | |
| | | | 
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | Re: Wonder why it failed?
'Onward through the fog', indeed.
Where the hell did the whole gun-play, VA hospital mental health thing come from? Yowza. | |
| 
Agent 86
| Wireless is the future Mobile broadband wireless will arrive within the next few years, and will be cheaper and better than BPL could ever be. | |
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | but, but, but, but....... Michael thinks BPL is the salvation of broadband! We need something to offset the bell/cable duopoly that Michael seems intent on creating.
Only the current FCC could think BPL is the answer to anything. | |
| | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: but, but, but, but....... ...or maybe Powell and the FCC know full well that the problems and opposition will prevent BPL deployment for years, during which their favored ILEC and Cable interests will be able to continue their comfortable broadband duopoly....
Remember, this is the Agency that figured out how to screw up the PCS frequency allocations and auctions so badly that PCS deployment (i.e., real cellular competition) was delayed for years and the cellular duopolies got a few score extra months of high wireless phone rates....
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| 
CheeseWare
Premium
join:2003-04-24
Burnaby, BC
| Market ruling Will the FCC, Chairman Powell and President Bush stop cheer leading BPL and let the market finally rule that this horse is dead? The Providers, Subscribers and Investors marketplace is not as impressed by this technology as the Regulator seems to be somehow. Is the Regulator not supposed to interfere anyhow;) ??? | |
| | 
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
| Re: Market ruling Since when does Bush have to do with it? Will you people stop blaming every single problem on the guy, next you'll be saying he was the second gunman on the grassy knoll.
--
"There's no such thing as a soul. It's just something they made up to scare kids, like the Boogeyman or Michael Jackson." - Bart Simpson | |
| | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: Market ruling said by Boogeyman :
Since when does Bush have to do with it?
Actually, Bush promoted BPL in a speech »www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases···6-6.html . I don't blame him for BPL, though. I blame his advisors, Michael Powell, most of the engineering staff at the FCC, several greedy equipment vendors, the PLCA, the APPA, the UPLC, several clueless utilities, lazy journalists copying press releases verbatim, and a couple hundred thousand gamers and warez downloaders who want broadband at any cost. Did I miss anyone?  | |
| | | |
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
| Re: Market ruling I dont know what that string of alphabet soup is, but I think you forgot the power companies eager to make more money by providing another service to the public that they will most likely screw up.
--
"There's no such thing as a soul. It's just something they made up to scare kids, like the Boogeyman or Michael Jackson." - Bart Simpson | |
| | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: Market ruling said by Boogeyman :
I dont know what that string of alphabet soup is, but I think you forgot the power companies eager to make more money by providing another service to the public that they will most likely screw up.
I don't blame the utilities as much as the other parties. I think they're going by the claims on the glossy sales colateral from the equipment vendors.
PLCA = Power Line Communications Association »www.plca.net/
UPLC = United Powerline Council »www.uplc.utc.org/
APPA = American Public Power Association »www.appanet.org/
I forget who the FCC is or what their role in this is...hehe | |
| | | | | |
ProCynic
@rtc5.illi | Re: Market ruling Apparently FCC now stands for Federal Chamber of Commerce. | |
| | | | | |
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
2 edits | He *was* the second gunman on the grassy knoll. I was in Dallas and I saw him. We should string him up, the bastard. | |
| russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| Does BPL have any advantages? It interferes with everything under the sun, it isn't particularly speedy, it doesn't eliminate infrastructure costs (because all those transformers and such have to be bridged).
I'd like to see the power companies run fiber alongside the power lines; it can be put a lot closer than copper, interferes with nothing, holds a lot more bandwidth, and doesn't require any bleeding-edge equipment. | |
| | keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
·Teliax VOIP
 ·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| Re: Does BPL have any advantages? I think one of the biggest problems is that they are a power company. A power company that makes money off of power.
For them to jump into broadband services is big. You need a ton of things on the other end. Internet connectivity, email services, web servers, DNS servers, etc etc. Power companies have no idea how to do this.
What about tech support? Power companies never had to do this before and it is scary. If someones toaster does not work when they plug it into an outlet they do not call the power company. To get a team of qualified tech support staff together would be a huge task, expecially when they sell power and have no idea about internet services. | |
| | | David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA | Re: Does BPL have any advantages? The power companies should focus on keeping the lights on, something that they have not been very good at and need to work on. | |
| | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by keyboard5684 :
I think one of the biggest problems is that they are a power company. A power company that makes money off of power.
For them to jump into broadband services is big. You need a ton of things on the other end. they sell power and have no idea about internet services.
The utility can act as a layer one/layer two provider and sell network bandwidth to ISPs, and let them mess with the IP stuff. I've read some carriers are considering this. But they still have to deal with truck rolls, CPE, and the frequency shell game in an attempt to avoid interference. But you're probably right, at the end of the day it's easier to make money selling power. | |
| | | | David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| BPL has failed, Powell has failed BPL has failed, Powell has failed – time for him to go
Michael Powell appointed himself the “BPL cheerleader” and wasted time on this failed technology instead of facilitating the full roll out of DSL and starting the roll out of fiber.
Time for Powell to go and hand the FCC over to someone who really understands technology and can expedite broadband roll out. | |
| Prototype5
join:2003-09-24
| Where is the data placed on the power lines? I know nothing about BPL (or power),so can anyone here give me the short version of how this is designed?
It is obvious they are not transmitting the data over power from the actual power plant.
They would have to at least run fiber to the town they are connecting and offload there on the equivalent of a CMTS or DSLAM.
The few comments I read seem to imply that they are transmitting over copper from this point on.
What is the maximum distance from this point that they are able to transmit over copper?
How wide are the frequency bands used for the forward and return path?
I don't see how BPL would be any less limited by distance from the CO than DSL without using fiber in the plant. (and by extension, requiring 2 entirely separate infrastructures up to the last mile).
Can someone clear this up for me? | |
| | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Where is the data placed on the power lines? said by Prototype5 :
I know nothing about BPL (or power),so can anyone here give me the short version of how this is designed?
Try here:
»www.gobpl.com/index.html | |
| |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Reader's digest version:
Data is placed on chunk of radio frequencies between 1.7 and 80 Mhz and coupled on the power line. It must be repeated every 200 meters or so because the signal is attenuated and radiated from the powerline. Devices are used to bypass the transformer to conduct the signal into the home. An alternate method used by one company is to use 802.11 from the pole to the home rather than BPL right into the house.
The chunk of frequencies varies per manufacturer. Amperion uses something like 3.5 to 4.5 Mhz chunks for the upstream and downstream. Main.net from what I heard blankets most of 1 to 30 Mhz.
BPL as you can probably tell is a last couple hundred foot solution, and is not long haul. Traffic must be backhauled using fiber or telco facilities, this cannot be originated from a power plant or substation and conducted like 60 hertz power. | |
| | | 
richk_1957
If ..Then..Else
Premium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith
| Re: Where is the data placed on the power lines? said by rf_engineer :
It must be repeated every 200 meters or so because the signal is attenuated and radiated from the powerline
So every couple hundred meters a repeater is needed to keep the power level up? What are they kidding?? Apart from the interference factor, I would think that it would be economically unfeasible simply because you would be spending all your money on these repeaters. | |
| | | Prototype5
join:2003-09-24
1 edit | "BPL as you can probably tell is a last couple hundred foot solution, and is not long haul. Traffic must be backhauled using fiber or telco facilities, this cannot be originated from a power plant or substation and conducted like 60 hertz power."
With cable (DOCSIS) you can run 100 miles of fiber from the CMTS to the first node (where it is offloaded to coax). The advantage here is that cable TV is also sent over the same fiber.
This implies to me that BPL must also do the same thing, only with BPL this is 2 lines and not one ($). It is expensive and time consuming to go through the trouble to lay that much new fiber (zoning restrictions etc.)
This shoots down any idea that it may be used in rural areas where Cable and DSL are not available.
---
"Devices are used to bypass the transformer to conduct the signal into the home"
Repeating every 200 meters + bypassing each transformer sounds like trouble. Why go through all that trouble to send 802.11 from the pole anyway?
Amperion uses something like 3.5 to 4.5 Mhz chunks for the upstream and downstream...blankets most of 1 to 30 Mhz.
So it uses 30 MHz of bandwidth? Is that becasue the greater transmit power = greater seperation and low compression modulation?
What modulations are used for this? | |
| | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Where is the data placed on the power lines?
Thank you, Prototype5 for pointing out the difference between BPL as an alternative "drop" into the residence and BPL as a transmission medium over longer distances.
These are two different applications of the same technology, and not distinguishing them and their applications is like saying "electricity is the answer to the energy crisis" without identifying what you plan to use to generate the electricity and what you plan to use to transmit or store it.
Alternatively, it's safe to assume that someone who trumpets "BPL" without explaining how they think it will be used and what specific parts of the transmission/distribution/loop network it will replace either doesn't know what they are talking about or does know and is deliberately being confusing.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| 
Augustus III
If Only Rome Could See Us Now....
join:2001-01-25
Gainesville, GA | heh Another one bites the dust...
Many countries prior have tried and failed, why did corporate greed america, inc thought they could rake in money out of it is beyond me. | |
| 
Varlik
Without Honor You Will Never Be Free
Premium
join:2002-01-06
Anderson, SC
2 edits | Bye Bye alternative revenue source. It's a pipe dream folks! An empty one at that, ideal in theory impractical in reality. I believe this was for more as an alternative revenue source then an alternative BB solution.
The Various Power company's in this country are cash starved. Most of their money is going to their share holders. What's left over is spent on the big Big BIG BIG salaries of the Corporate Executives.
This leaves very little for basic maintenance let along anything else. They were looking for that money to help pay for improving, repairing, replacing and expanding our nations aging power grid.
--
"Sir SIR! We don't use DHCP servers. We only use IBM & Microsoft servers." From there my call to tech support went steadily downhill.--
| |
| David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| Broadband Over Power Lines Runs Out of Gas The lack of research that went into this BPL PR effort is shown by this statement:
"EarthLink, for example, is partnering with Progress Energy to deliver BPL in a field trial outside of Raleigh, North Carolina."
A quick visit to BBR would have found this;
»Another One Bites the Dust
(Another One Bites the Dust - Raleigh BPL trial ends; no expansion planned)
BPL under a host of names - DPL, PLT, PLC, BPL - has for the last 8 years moved from country to country like a drunk staggering from bar to bar in search of one last drink.
A better (and more accurate) headline would be Broadband Over Power Lines Runs Out of Gas. | |
| | | |
|
|
Another One Bites the Dust