 
Mactron
el Camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
| Not much hope... "But it has been slow to catch on, partly due to opposition from ham radio operators, who claim BPL interferes with its transmissions."
Statements such as this from the IEEE doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling about this RF polluter ever being a good neighbor. Claim ?.. It's no claim, it does interfere. Not only with Amateur (Ham), but also Military, Commercial, and Broadcast HF users. There's not much hope for BPL with this attitude. 
Signed,
Sadly disappointed in the IEEE.
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well.  | |
|  | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| Re: Not much hope... said by Mactron  :"But it has been slow to catch on, partly due to opposition from ham radio operators, who claim BPL interferes with its transmissions."Statements such as this from the IEEE doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling about this RF polluter ever being a good neighbor. Claim ?.. It's no claim, it does interfere. Not only with Amateur (Ham), but also Military, Commercial, and Broadcast HF users. There's not much hope for BPL with this attitude. Signed, Sadly disappointed in the IEEE. You can be disappointed in the IEEE, but the idiot making the statement is an industry mouthpiece, apparently a Russell Haggar, VP of marketing at BPL chip developer SiConnect (Swindon, England). His company is one of several who appear to be feeding the standards committee what they would like to see as 'the standard'.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| 
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
| Interference issues The noise pollution that is emitted is by the older, mostly dead deployments. The later technologies are mostly RF interference free or near free. As always Emergency services in the case of a Natural disaster is a moot point when it comes to the interference.
A recent test done by the FCC on a very small scale with new injectors/extractors, in various types of deployment (Wireless from the pole, and Wired to the outlet) Has shown that over 99% of the interference has been eliminated, even 100% in some shore range tests.
The main problem seen with these new tests was the further you run the service out from the injection node, the slower the throughput, and Ping times. This remains consistent with all typed of data deployment, even fiber. | |
| | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: Interference issues said by ctceo :The noise pollution that is emitted is by the older, mostly dead deployments. The later technologies are mostly RF interference free or near free. As always Emergency services in the case of a Natural disaster is a moot point when it comes to the interference. Ah, but is that at certain frequencies that have been notched or at all frequencies? While amateur radio operators are the vocal group, they are also the ones closest to the trial sites and thus currently the most affected (and have an organization), plus we are at a propagation null for the current 11 year cycle.
And true, interference is a moot point during a disaster, AT THE SITE OF THE DISASTER. But the people at the site of the disaster are not pumping 1.5 KW into an optimized beam either, so the people outside of the disaster are trying to listen to a weak signal, and THOSE places are the ones potentially affected by BPL.
But both of these concepts have all been hashed over many times here, and we still have the same ignoring of the entire puzzle and a focus on one tiny piece of it.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | 
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by ctceo :The noise pollution that is emitted is by the older, mostly dead deployments. The later technologies are mostly RF interference free or near free. As always Emergency services in the case of a Natural disaster is a moot point when it comes to the interference. I'm surprised you've brought up the no power/no interference fallacy despite being here for quite some time and hearing the reasons it's wrong. What causes you to continually ignore the facts in front of you?
A recent test done by the FCC on a very small scale with new injectors/extractors, in various types of deployment (Wireless from the pole, and Wired to the outlet) Has shown that over 99% of the interference has been eliminated, even 100% in some shore range tests. How about citing where this information can be found? Or is this under another one of your infamous NDAs?
The main problem seen with these new tests was the further you run the service out from the injection node, the slower the throughput, and Ping times. This remains consistent with all typed of data deployment, even fiber.
Technically this is correct, but you're incredibly simplistic. Any device in a network that has to demodulate, decode, repeat, switch, route, encode, or modulate adds some delay to the network path. These delays must be differentiated from other delays in the network such as those from media access protocols (i.e. waiting for a timeslot, resolving collisions, etc.). BPL repeaters (as far as I know) are layer one devices, therefore the propagation delay should be minuscule. I can only think that the delays you are referring to are caused more by media access issues. Regardless, your statement dismissing this as "consistent with all type[s] of data deployment" isn't very applicable without further information especially considering delays in fiber network elements are often measured in tens or hundreds of nanoseconds not milliseconds. Such delays aren't even measurable with ping. Unfortunately I doubt you have the information or technical knowledge to comment on this. | |
| | |
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
edit:
July 16th, @05:07PM
| Re: Interference issues Unfortunately, I have not been presented with enough of this so called evidence. I am sorry that you feel it is a fallacy.
As for the NDA, I wasn't directly part of these tests, I was simply kept in the loop during them, because the people overseeing them are peers. You may cite NDA because I had been restricted by them in the past. In these particular cases I simply will not comment out of respect for my peers who have been working diligently with the FCC to maintain a good clean working testbed.
And, hey, Why be complex about something that is simple. It saves me typing, and the needless confusion so often caused by over-elaboration. So therefore even though you may feel it may not be "very applicable", it is quite the opposite, no matter how minuscule, the fact is still there.
I am a Privately contracted Professional Consultant, in my fields of expertise, My technical knowledge stretches for 9+ years in the Broadcast Engineering, RF Frequency Analysis, including Telecommunications Engineering for 11 years. With 7 Years in Business Management & Accounting, 20 years in Computer & Electronics Repair.
end. | |
| | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: Interference issues said by ctceo :Unfortunately, I have not been presented with enough of this so called evidence. I am sorry that you feel it is a fallacy. Yes, you have, you just choose to conveniently ignore it when you do your drive-by postings. I'll review the reasons for you:
1. Emergency operations in a disaster area often have to contact stations in non-emergency areas that would have power and BPL interference.
2. In order to train and maintain equipment during non-emergency times, station operators need to have interference-free spectrum to work with.
As for the NDA, I wasn't directly part of these tests, I was simply kept in the loop during them, because the people overseeing them are peers. You may cite NDA because I had been restricted by them in the past. In these particular cases I simply will not comment out of respect for my peers who have been working diligently with the FCC to maintain a good clean working testbed. One thing I can say is at least you're consistent. This is the umpteenth time you've made a statement and cited undisclosable sources, tests, information, etc. You might as well claim space aliens did the test on your front lawn, because it's about as provable.
And, hey, Why be complex about something that is simple. It saves me typing, and the needless confusion so often caused by over-elaboration. So therefore even though you may feel it may not be "very applicable", it is quite the opposite, no matter how minuscule, the fact is still there. It's not much typing to indicate what kind of latency you're seeing. Either you don't know, you're too lazy to type it, or the amount of latency you're seeing makes the analogy to delays seen in fiber networks laughable.
I am a Privately contracted Professional Consultant, in my fields of expertise, My technical knowledge stretches for 9+ years in the Broadcast Engineering, RF Frequency Analysis, including Telecommunications Engineering for 11 years. With 7 Years in Business Management & Accounting, 20 years in Computer & Electronics Repair. You could be the President of the United States and it wouldn't make much of a difference or mean anything here. You haven't posted anything remotely supporting your supposed credentials the several years you've been posting in BPL articles here. | |
| | | | |
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs: | Re: Interference issues I'm sorry you feel that way. | |
| | | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: Interference issues said by ctceo :I'm sorry you feel that way. Drive by trolling complete.... | |
| | | | | | |
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs: | Re: Interference issues Come to think of it you did have a nice troll by. | |
| | | | | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: Interference issues said by ctceo :Come to think of it you did have a nice troll by. Let's review your modus operandi:
1. Make an unsupported statement sprinkled with known fallacies.
2. When asked for support, claim that you can't because it's under an NDA or you don't want to blah, blah, blah.
3. Claim you have credentials that are inconsistent with everything you've ever posted, supposedly to prove your credibility.
4. "I'm sorry you feel that way"
This isn't the first time you've done this. The above qualifies you as a troll.
If only you and the likes of our anonymous investor realized how your childish actions continue to erode what little credibility BPL has left. | |
| | | |
|
|
BPL Standard Advances