DirecTV To Test Powerline BroadbandCompany in talks with providers, says CEO ( old news - 07:12PM Monday May 14 2007) tags: satellite · business · alternatives · BPLTipped by ColorBASIC  New DirecTV owner Liberty Media has stated they'd like to get DirecTV back into the broadband business -- but as we've noted -- there isn't a lot the company hasn't tried. In 2002 DirecTV's DSL effort was laid to rest, as we're sure many of you remember -- and in 2004 DirecTV announced they'd be re-purposing their Spaceway satellites for HD content, essentially turning their back on the satellite broadband business. One thing the company hasn't tried is broadband over powerlines (BPL), which DirecTV's CEO says they may begin testing soon. According to DirecTV CEO Chase Carey, the company is in talks with BPL providers, and is interested in testing BPL in a "top 50 city where you're covering at least half the city," Carey says. A trial with several hundred-thousand people would give the company ample "challenges and positives," he says. Rumors of DirecTV's re-entry into the broadband space have been fairly consistent -- the most recent being their plan to merge with Echostar and get into the WiMax business with a billion in funding from News Corp. That plan seemed to have derailed once Rupert Murdoch (who dubbed DirecTV a "turd bird") traded the company to Liberty, though Liberty remains interested in offering triple play service in some way. BPL is a obviously a risky proposition for the satellite provider, for all the reasons we've discussed countless times. The often interference-prone technology has never escaped niche status in the broadband industry, despite years of promises by BPL hardware vendors. Related:- BPL is Back with a New Face
- WiMax Antennas May Interfere with Satellites
- High Speed and High Def Hit High Seas
- DirecTV, Current Offer Broadband Over Powerline
- Google TV Ads Goes Public
- Echostar Begins Testing Mobile TV Options
- New Japanese Satellite Hits 1.2Gbps
- HughesNet Offers Faster Speeds
|
 Sammer
join:2005-12-22 Pittsburgh, PA | Note: In a Major City Note that DirecTV wants to see this test done in a major city. BPL if it succeeds at all will only be in areas that already have broadband internet service, it is not an answer at all for the digital divide. | |
|  |  |  |  |   Chode
@bellsouth.net | Re: Note: In a Major City Love your Picture... | |
|  |   Dude111 An Awesome Dude Premium join:2003-08-04 USA edit: May 17th, @02:26AM
| No BPL!!
BPL IS GARBAGE AND WILL WIPE OUT A HUGE PORTION OF RADIO SPECTRUM!!!!!!!!!!! | |
|  |   Pashune Your average, anemic person. Premium join:2006-04-14 Gautier, MS
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Note: In a Major City said by Sammer :Note that DirecTV wants to see this test done in a major city. BPL if it succeeds at all will only be in areas that already have broadband internet service, it is not an answer at all for the digital divide. My point exactly + the interference with HAM radios and what-not. Now..if it came to my city of 12,000 people? I'd love it. We already have broadband, but anything above 1.5 mbit via DSL is unavailable, and cable is outrageously expensive, with their highest speed tier being ONLY 5 mbps. | |
|  robertfl Premium join:2005-10-10 Mary Esther, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Cox HSI
edit: May 14th, @07:11PM
| Didn't they do this before? I clearly remember Destruct TV's Broadband plan before. ...and it failed!
I would like to see the rest of the world get broadband. If this is the way, just don't let it screw up local AM/FM broadcasts.
-Rob
»www.savenetradio.org | |
|  |  hottboiinnc Kyle
join:2003-10-15 Toledo, OH | Re: Didn't they do this before? they had DirecTV DSL but that was not under Liberty Media. They do have Wi-Fi with a partnership with Eartlink | |
|  |   kruser Premium join:2002-06-01 Chesterfield, MO clubs:
·AT&T Southwest
| said by robertfl :I clearly remember Destruct TV's Broadband plan before. ...and it failed! I would like to see the rest of the world get broadband. If this is the way, just don't let it screw up local AM/FM broadcasts. -Rob » www.savenetradio.org I think what you are saying is that BPL will wipe out AM radio reception but I'm not clear when you mention FM. FM radio for broadcast purpose starts around 87 Mhz. I think the highest I've heard for BPL was 54 Mhz. So FM radio should not be a problem! But, BPL is a problem! I actually enjoy being able to listen to broadcasts from other countries on the HF or SW bands which BPL will surely destroy. No, I'm not an amateur (HAM) operator but I know radio. HF/SW is a proven way of communication all the way around this screwed up world. Show me a cell phone that can talk around the world without any infrastructure and I'll give you a dollar! | |
|   ColorBASIC 8-bit Fun Premium join:2006-12-29 Corona, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·Covad Wireless
edit: May 14th, @08:24PM
| Why not go back to DSL Why not go back to reselling DSL? If memory serves there were a bunch here who liked them and very disapointed to see the quick exit. DSLExtreme on many occasions has mentioned that they were even working on FiOS reselling deals.
Of course "any day now" back in 2005 »Reselling FIOS - when?
Test order installed 2005? »Any update on FIOS availability?
DSLX comment missing from this thread »Is FIOS sill comming
But if reselling fiber is still possible it opens the door for D* to get back into a future-proof reselling biz. | |
|  |  |  |  |   ColorBASIC 8-bit Fun Premium join:2006-12-29 Corona, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·Covad Wireless
edit: May 14th, @11:02PM
| Re: Why not go back to DSL The only thing I can see coming out of this deployment is DBS VOD but like TiVo, they can offer VoD to those who has a box with connectivity. If the DBS box has a RJ45 port they could run a speed test to their server to see if it supports streaming and if it doesn't pull a XBX360 or Vongo and xfer the VOD program before use.
This is what I was hoping E* would do with their MPEG4 DVR since it's RJ45 equipped but after the 2/14 IPTV deployment rumor proved false I am just waiting for something to come around.
If not for my E* contract I would go back to cable just for VOD as there aren't yet enough titles on the XBX360. And after digital simulcasting and other improvements the TWC picture even for the 'lower 100' looks as good or better than DBS, especially on their HD channels. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   RR Conductor 'Boarrrd Premium join:2002-04-02 Redwood Valley, CA
·Comcast
| Re: RF Polluter People could say you are the ones polluting the spectrum, and preventing a broadband technology from being deployed, it goes both ways. Something like this has the potential to bring broadband to millions who can't currently get it, let's not shut it out. | |
|  |  |  |  W1RFI
join:2003-05-12 Burlington, CT
| Re: RF Polluter > People could say you are the ones polluting the spectrum, > and preventing a broadband technology from being > deployed, it goes both ways.
BPL has chosen to deploy under FCC rules that require that it not cause harmful interference to licensed radio service and that state clearly that BPL must accept any interference caused to it.
To have made the poor engineering choice of designing systems that must operate under those conditions and then to cry foul and claim that those same licensed services are "preventing BPL from BPL from being deployed" is pretty much a contradiction in terms.
Ed Hare, W1RFI ARRL Lab | |
|  |  |  |  N3EVL
join:2004-12-13 Shrewsbury, MA
| You seem to misunderstand the nature of BPL -- it does not use or require the spectrum that it pollutes as a part of its delivery mechanism. Its radiation into that spectrum is an unfortunate byproduct of this shoddy technology. In light of this, your comparison is without merit. | |
|  |  |  |  |   Transmaster Onward Through The Fog
join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY
| Re: RF Polluter Now if we could somehow tie BPL into global warming that would end it right there.  -- The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
|  |  |  |  |   Jafo232 You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat. Premium join:2002-10-17 Modena, NY
| said by N3EVL :You seem to misunderstand the nature of BPL -- it does not use or require the spectrum that it pollutes as a part of its delivery mechanism. Its radiation into that spectrum is an unfortunate byproduct of this shoddy technology. In light of this, your comparison is without merit. That doesn't matter. It isn't ALLOWED to interfere and must accept any interference. Whether it needs the spectrum or not has nothing to do with it. -- 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached' | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  N3EVL
join:2004-12-13 Shrewsbury, MA
| Re: RF Polluter said by Jafo232 :said by N3EVL :You seem to misunderstand the nature of BPL -- it does not use or require the spectrum that it pollutes as a part of its delivery mechanism. Its radiation into that spectrum is an unfortunate byproduct of this shoddy technology. In light of this, your comparison is without merit. That doesn't matter. It isn't ALLOWED to interfere and must accept any interference. Whether it needs the spectrum or not has nothing to do with it. Agreed, but I swear I've read enough posts on this subjects by misinformed people who know nothing of -or- care less about the facts of how BPL is delivered. Cable and DSL must contain themselves within their respective media - and so should BPL or exit the playing field. | |
|  |  |  BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN
| Sorry your 1927 technology may be hampered. People like you would be against the telephone because it was ruining the telegraph. | |
|  |  |  |   airshark --... ...-- -.. . -. -.... .-.. -.-- Premium join:2003-05-20 Hollister, CA
·Charter Pipeline
edit: May 15th, @03:26AM
| Re: RF Polluter If you think the laws in reference to spectrum are silly and 1927-ish, then please, by all means lobby your congressman and the FCC to have them changed.
Until that time, no matter how silly you think my hobby is, the law should be followed. Interference problems arise from the fact that the BPL system interference complaints are not addressed properly when an issue arises. The law as well as the operating agreement that these companies enter into is not followed or enforced.
We are allocated that spectrum for our "hobby" use as well as the very small chance that you need us to communicate when all else fails. The federal government obviously sees a need for the existence of Amateur Radio. If they thought it outmoded and a waste of bandwidth, they would and could simply squash our existence. Our numbers are small and getting smaller.
Instead, the Department of Homeland Security is funding & outfitting countless Amateur Radio Disaster Services groups around the country as we speak. Again, there is a need.
You can be assured that if MY amateur station was interfering with BPL service locally, I WOULD respond to the interference complaint and do all that I could to eliminate it. The same cannot be said for the BPL trials run to date.
People get so accustomed to modern life amenities like the internet, telephone, and email that many forget it simply takes a small misfortune or failure in infrastructure to have those comforts removed. Then what is left? The self-sufficient volunteer amateur radio operator.
I truly hope that you will never need our services in your lifetime, but if you do, we will all gladly assist you with a smile.
P.S.-I can and do send email & short text messages over the radio...I don't believe email existed in 1927. I could be wrong though. I am only 27 years old.  | |
|  |  |  |  |   RR Conductor 'Boarrrd Premium join:2002-04-02 Redwood Valley, CA
·Comcast
| Re: RF Polluter I don't think anybody is arguing with you on those things, at least I'm not. What I'm saying is this technology has the potential to bring broadband to many who would otherwise be without it, and in this day and age, the internet is as important as the phone, or a radio or tv, and in times of crisis, can keep functioning when other means have been shut down. I think we can find a way for both to coexist. -- »www.gorail.org See MAJOR freight&passenger action@ the Galesburg, IL RailCam! »205.245.189.161:1100/ My soon to be employer,as an Asst.Conductor- »www.amtrak.com »www.modocrailroadacademy.com -Grad,Class of 2-07,woohoo! | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   airshark --... ...-- -.. . -. -.... .-.. -.-- Premium join:2003-05-20 Hollister, CA | Re: RF Polluter We can agree on that for sure. I LOVE the internet. I'm all for everyone getting it. Even over BPL. I just wish that they would stick to their operating agreements and deal with interference the same as I am legally required to. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  stonecolddsl
join:2004-01-07 Sarasota, FL
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Rapid Systems, Inc.
| Re: RF Polluter said by airshark :We can agree on that for sure. I LOVE the internet. I'm all for everyone getting it. Even over BPL. I just wish that they would stick to their operating agreements and deal with interference the same as I am legally required to. Now I have a question reguard ham and bpl. the one major arguement I seen is if bpl is allowed we are all screwed because ham operators wont be able to convey messages etc, in a diaster. Lets face it when telephone lines go down and cell towers are overloaded there is only one way to communicate out side the diaster area that is with ham radios. So here is my question anyway, if a diaster happened where i lived I can tellyou bpl would not be an issue as there woul be no power . no power no bpl. Also there is not that many power companies out there who want ot impleament bpl so what is the big deal. FPL (florida power and Light) Has one of the biggest fiber optics networks in the state yet has no plans to do bpl. this is almost like the little boy who cried wolf. BPL BPL BPL it will destroy us all, yet people look around and dont see bpl, so they ignore you and go on to there day to day business. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: RF Polluter said by stonecolddsl :Now I have a question regard ham and bpl. the one major argument I seen is if bpl is allowed we are all screwed because ham operators wont be able to convey messages etc, in a disaster. Lets face it when telephone lines go down and cell towers are overloaded there is only one way to communicate out side the disaster area that is with ham radios. So here is my question anyway, if a disaster happened where i lived I can tell you bpl would not be an issue as there would be no power . no power no bpl. Also there is not that many power companies out there who want to implement bpl so what is the big deal. FPL (florida power and Light) Has one of the biggest fiber optics networks in the state yet has no plans to do bpl. this is almost like the little boy who cried wolf. BPL BPL BPL it will destroy us all, yet people look around and don't see bpl, so they ignore you and go on to there day to day business. Not this tired argument again. 
Again, if BPL died in the disaster area, there would be no problem IN THAT AREA! If the receiving station has BPL in the area, they won't be able to hear the station in the disaster area.
Do you propose shutting down all BPL services in the event of a disaster? That would be close to year round in this country. 
I'll even add that if there was another service that interfered with someone's TV or cell phone, they would be crying how they couldn't watch Jerry Springer or call their friend to chit chat. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  stonecolddsl
join:2004-01-07 Sarasota, FL | Re: RF Polluter Yes but the difference is that the major of the us population uses cell phones and tv. Now I am sure if ham people were the majority then there would be no interfering bpl. But the fact is is that ham operators are in the minority. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  W1RFI
join:2003-05-12 Burlington, CT
| > I think we can find a way for both to coexist.
Actually, on behalf of ARRL, I have been working to do just that.
I first must note, however, that calling Amateur Radio a "1927 technology" is not going to accomplish coexistance in any form. Amateur Radio uses a wide variety of operating modes, from simple Morse code through digital, television and even satellites, with communications satellites built and lauched by hams. And we won't even get into the public-service value of Amateur Radio. That sort of language is intended to be inflammatory. It bad enough when some of the BPL organizations use terms like "armchair amateurs using vacuum tube technology," but if we are to have a rational discussion, such trolling should not be used here.
For BPL to coexist with licensed radio services, it simply has to avoid any and all spectrum that is use near it (typically a few hundred feet to as much as a mile away from wires carrying BPL). BPL operating at the FCC limits can be as much as 60 dB stronger than the local noise floor. (That is a factor or 1,000,000X power).
To avoid interference, BPL must filter the spectrum it doesn't use to a good-enough degree that it doesn't cause objectionable noise to the nearby use of radio spectrum. (For a good example of what "objectionable" means, ask yourself how much noise you would tolerate on your routine use of your home telephone.)
There has been progress made on the coexistance front. To date, Amperion, Current Technologies, Motorola (now out of the access BPL market), Mitsubishi (now out of the North Amercian BPL market), Corinex, IBEC and Kaicom -- most BPL manufacturers, are actively working with ARRL on interference mitigation, and trying different system configurations and designs. (Main.net is not yet actively working with ARRL, but recently, one of their engineers approached me to note that their new systems are an improvement over what was seen in Manassas, so ARRL and Main.net are basically talking about working together.) At this point, most, but not all, BPL manufacturers are working with ARRL toward coexistance with Amateur Radio.
The results have been encouraging. First out of that gate was HomePlug technology, which implemented its first-generation product with spectral masks to protect Amateur Radio, and has maintained that design technique through two generations, into HomePlug AV, the 200 Mb/s technology. (See »p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/HomePlug_ARRL.pdf).
Current Technologies, the BPL manufacturer whose equipment is being used in Cincinnati, OH and Dallas, TX uses HomePlug technology on the 240-volt wiring, and 32-48 MHz on overhead power lines. The result? In both cities, BPL is deploying without major interference problems.
DS2, a BPL-chipset manufacturer, has also worked closely with ARRL, as have many of its customers, making modems using DS2 ICs. DS2 improved the performance of its filtering, with the result that ARRL site visits to several DS2-based areas (Houston, TX; Springfield, MA;Bowling Green, OH and San Diego, CA) showed that the improved notching significantly improved the EMC performance of the system, to the point that mobile Amateur Radio operation, and presumably most fixed operation, was not seeing widespread harmful interference.
There is still work to go. In most cases, these improvements have not been demonstrated by all of the BPL manufacturers in larger deployments. (Cincinatti, Dallas and Houston are pretty large at this point, so those are exceptions). BPL organizations like UPLC.org have not (yet?) demonstrated any real spirit of mutual cooperation, and ARRL does not work with them the way it does with HomePlug, the Home Phone Networking Alliance, the DSL committees and the National Cable Telecommunications Society, to name a few.
Organizationally, the industry is missing the EMC boat, and UPLC is doing little or nothing to try to open that door, despite some prodding from some of its member companies. But ARRL has been able to an end run around that general non-cooperative approach and directly approach many of the BPL manufacturers, integrators and electric utilities and accomplish a start of what it has been able to do for other industries such as cable and DSL -- prevent most interference before it happens, and develop solutions for the remainder.
Another major hole thus far is in the industry standards area. There are successful models for BPL deployment, but the industry has generally blocked the inclusion of those models in industry standards. (Although it does remain to be seen how these standards hold up to the ballot process. Under the IEEE model, the group that votes on a standard is not necessarily the same group that created it.)
I must add that all of the above applies to Amateur Radio spectrum. So far, none of the BPL operations are making any attempt to avoid the use of the international shortwave broadcast bands. The SW listeners, however, are not filing complaints, but most may not know what the noise source is, know that they can complain or want to literally make a federal case out of noise on their SW listening.
Ed Hare, W1RFI ARRL Laboratory 225 Main St Newington, CT 06111 Tel: 860-594-0318 Web: »www.arrl.org/bpl
| |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   Tzale Ron Paul 2008 - Proud Conservative Premium join:2004-01-06 NJ, USA
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| Re: RF Polluter said by W1RFI :> I think we can find a way for both to coexist. Actually, on behalf of ARRL, I have been working to do just that. I first must note, however, that calling Amateur Radio a "1927 technology" is not going to accomplish coexistance in any form. Amateur Radio uses a wide variety of operating modes, from simple Morse code through digital, television and even satellites, with communications satellites built and lauched by hams. And we won't even get into the public-service value of Amateur Radio. That sort of language is intended to be inflammatory. It bad enough when some of the BPL organizations use terms like "armchair amateurs using vacuum tube technology," but if we are to have a rational discussion, such trolling should not be used here. For BPL to coexist with licensed radio services, it simply has to avoid any and all spectrum that is use near it (typically a few hundred feet to as much as a mile away from wires carrying BPL). BPL operating at the FCC limits can be as much as 60 dB stronger than the local noise floor. (That is a factor or 1,000,000X power). To avoid interference, BPL must filter the spectrum it doesn't use to a good-enough degree that it doesn't cause objectionable noise to the nearby use of radio spectrum. (For a good example of what "objectionable" means, ask yourself how much noise you would tolerate on your routine use of your home telephone.) There has been progress made on the coexistance front. To date, Amperion, Current Technologies, Motorola (now out of the access BPL market), Mitsubishi (now out of the North Amercian BPL market), Corinex, IBEC and Kaicom -- most BPL manufacturers, are actively working with ARRL on interference mitigation, and trying different system configurations and designs. (Main.net is not yet actively working with ARRL, but recently, one of their engineers approached me to note that their new systems are an improvement over what was seen in Manassas, so ARRL and Main.net are basically talking about working together.) At this point, most, but not all, BPL manufacturers are working with ARRL toward coexistance with Amateur Radio. The results have been encouraging. First out of that gate was HomePlug technology, which implemented its first-generation product with spectral masks to protect Amateur Radio, and has maintained that design technique through two generations, into HomePlug AV, the 200 Mb/s technology. (See » p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/HomePlug_ARRL.pdf). Current Technologies, the BPL manufacturer whose equipment is being used in Cincinnati, OH and Dallas, TX uses HomePlug technology on the 240-volt wiring, and 32-48 MHz on overhead power lines. The result? In both cities, BPL is deploying without major interference problems. DS2, a BPL-chipset manufacturer, has also worked closely with ARRL, as have many of its customers, making modems using DS2 ICs. DS2 improved the performance of its filtering, with the result that ARRL site visits to several DS2-based areas (Houston, TX; Springfield, MA;Bowling Green, OH and San Diego, CA) showed that the improved notching significantly improved the EMC performance of the system, to the point that mobile Amateur Radio operation, and presumably most fixed operation, was not seeing widespread harmful interference. There is still work to go. In most cases, these improvements have not been demonstrated by all of the BPL manufacturers in larger deployments. (Cincinatti, Dallas and Houston are pretty large at this point, so those are exceptions). BPL organizations like UPLC.org have not (yet?) demonstrated any real spirit of mutual cooperation, and ARRL does not work with them the way it does with HomePlug, the Home Phone Networking Alliance, the DSL committees and the National Cable Telecommunications Society, to name a few. Organizationally, the industry is missing the EMC boat, and UPLC is doing little or nothing to try to open that door, despite some prodding from some of its member companies. But ARRL has been able to an end run around that general non-cooperative approach and directly approach many of the BPL manufacturers, integrators and electric utilities and accomplish a start of what it has been able to do for other industries such as cable and DSL -- prevent most interference before it happens, and develop solutions for the remainder. Another major hole thus far is in the industry standards area. There are successful models for BPL deployment, but the industry has generally blocked the inclusion of those models in industry standards. (Although it does remain to be seen how these standards hold up to the ballot process. Under the IEEE model, the group that votes on a standard is not necessarily the same group that created it.) I must add that all of the above applies to Amateur Radio spectrum. So far, none of the BPL operations are making any attempt to avoid the use of the international shortwave broadcast bands. The SW listeners, however, are not filing complaints, but most may not know what the noise source is, know that they can complain or want to literally make a federal case out of noise on their SW listening. Ed Hare, W1RFI ARRL Laboratory 225 Main St Newington, CT 06111 Tel: 860-594-0318 Web: » www.arrl.org/bpl Great post... Proud ARRL member here! Long live Amateur Radio and 73!
-Tzale | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| First off, BPL will NOT serve rural communities. It will overlap were DSL, fiber and cable are right now. It costs too much to send it out too far.
Second, keeping ham radio only around in crisis is like you not doing emergency training until an accident happens. Imagine what would happen if Amtrak mandated no emergency drills because they take up too much time and cost too much. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  W1RFI
join:2003-05-12 Burlington, CT
| Re: RF Polluter > First off, BPL will NOT serve rural communities. It will > overlap were DSL, fiber and cable are right now. It > costs too much to send it out too far.
IBEC is making a business go of selling BPL to rural areas, primarily through helping rural utilities get subsidized RUS loans. The Central Virginia Electic Co-op is building a fairly large commercial system in and around Colleen, VA.
I was just there, and it truly is rural, complete with dirt roads with route numbers and lots of cow pastures. Most of the electric lines run in between farms, so I wasn't able to get to all areas of the system.
While some of the really remote roads may not get BPL, the system there is extended well past the rural-community center of town.
> Second, keeping ham radio only around in crisis is like > you not doing emergency training until an accident > happens. Imagine what would happen if Amtrak mandated no > emergency drills because they take up too much time and > cost too much.
Few people would invest in ham radio if the only time they could use it was when there was an actual emergency to deal with. Hams put together stations because they get to use them regularly. The fact that when needed, they can sometimes provide the ONLY communication out of a real disaster area is a benefit of the whole package.
Ed | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  N3EVL
join:2004-12-13 Shrewsbury, MA
| said by BF69 :Sorry your 1927 technology may be hampered. People like you would be against the telephone because it was ruining the telegraph. If this is the extent of you knowledge and understanding of Amateur Radio as it exists in 2007, then you have obviously done no research at all prior to posting. While the physics that makes HF radio such a valuable resource has not and will not change, the technology that utilizes this resource and radio amateurs' adoption and furthering of that technology is evident to those who might make the effort to look. If you really think that those of us who are passionate about radio communication would express that passion only in terms of an antique implementation of the underlying technology, then you are mistaken and your post is irrelevant. | |
|  Time4aNAP Premium join:2007-04-09 Des Plaines, IL
·Speakeasy
·Comcast
| Fool Me Twice? Hell no!
Once upon a time, I had the bestest DSL service ever. It was only 1.0 Mbps, but it was symmetrical. And it came with a static IP address at no extra charge. That charge was $50/mo. That's 25 times as fast downstream, and 35 times as fast as the best upstream rates that I ever got from a "56k" POTS modem, for only 2 times the price. Although there was no SLA, my uptime was well over 99%. I was happy.
Then DirecTV stepped into the picture. I must admit that they were state of the art...at billing, that is. They didn't seem to care about anything besides that. But they had billing working like a charm, even after they quit service, they just kept on billing and billing.
No, DirecTV will not be seeing another cent of my money. They had their chance and blew it. Abandoning their DirecPC customers is yet another reminder of how little they care about maintaining business relationships. I wouldn't go to them for satellite TV service either. | |
|  |   fdf
@comcast.net | Re: Fool Me Twice? Hell no! hell no BPL | |
|  |  |   oursys08
join:2001-10-10 Manchester, KY | Re: Fool Me Twice? Hell no! I was wondering if this really is going to take effect? Im wanting fast internet in my area so bad but you can't game on hugnes I heard it was really slow. Thank You Everyone! | |
|  |  |  |  Time4aNAP Premium join:2007-04-09 Des Plaines, IL
·Speakeasy
·Comcast
| Re: Fool Me Twice? Hell no! said by oursys08 :I was wondering if this really is going to take effect? After years of trying, it seems that nobody can make it production worthy. That's a bit of a problem.
I don't know how it is where you live, but in Chicago, the electric monopoly that got huge rate hikes based on the claim that they needed the money to maintain their aging infrastructure blew it all at the roulette wheel, or some lame excuse like that. So our infrastructure is quite literally falling apart, burning itself to the ground (plenty of underground fires too), or otherwise failing on a regular basis.
I doubt that we'll be seeing anything other than the usual unwanted noise and spikes coming over our power lines for a long, long time. I hope you have better luck where you are. If you're in TVA country, you have some hope. | |
|   fcisler Premium join:2004-06-14 Riverhead, NY
| Don't want DTV or their ISP The ONLY time I would ever get DTV - or any satellite based "service" - would be if I were in the sticks, and it was my only option. I have no other interest in them. Period.
Now...assuming i'm in the sticks....how the #(%$#)$@# do they plan on providing me DSL, BPL, Fiber, Underwear Gnomes, etc etc?
Sorry....i'll keep my HFC network(s) for the Net' and Video.... | |
|   TechieZero Tools Are Using Me Premium join:2002-01-25 Wesley Chapel, FL | More Competition = Good
I hope this happens and is successful. This would mean more competition, which creates more jobs and helps the consumer. | |
|  |  N3EVL
join:2004-12-13 Shrewsbury, MA
| Re: More Competition = Good said by TechieZero :I hope this happens and is successful. This would mean more competition, which creates more jobs and helps the consumer. Giving more people better access to the internet is indeed commendable - but that does not mean we have to bless any old technology that comes along without weighing the pros and cons - and this BPL technology has more cons than pros to say the least! | |
|   Shrapnel64 Premium join:2001-01-24 Hayes, VA
·Verizon Online DSL
·Cox HSI
| Pricing? The only drawback to many of DirecTV's broadband offering is their pricing.
I know at least from their Satellite offerings, the equipment is expensive to purchase up front to save 40 bucks a month or it's more expensive per month (around 100 bucks a month). Granted, it works pretty much anywhere you have a clear view of the sky...but for them to be competitive, there must be a decrease in price (around the 50 dollar mark). | |
|  |  enrolk
join:2002-04-23 Murrells Inlet, SC
·HughesNet Satellit..
| Re: Pricing? Up until March of this year I was a Hughesnet and Directv customer, using a tripod and dish with my Motorhome. It served it's purpose. The only reason anyone would do this is if they had no choice. Like cutting off your have to get free.
I now have TWC for TV and their Internet [Roadrunner]. Still there is the occasional "Burp" in both, but they are half the price of Satellite.
When I first heard of BPL I thought, oh boy, won't that make things easier. But the drawbacks and limitations make if impractical. It still doesn't help those in the wilderness areas of America.
This press release may have been put out for some other reason then to tell people what will be coming down the pike. It may have just filled an empty spot in the press.
To try to compete with Cable and DSL at this point would be suicide financially. They will of course be able to glum tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars out of various cities to do tests. Fraud and deception. BS at internet speeds. It will never come to pass for those who really need it. | |
|  |  |  BrotherJPW
join:2003-11-27 Glen Ellyn, IL
| Re: Pricing? Here is a way to solve BPL issue. Maybe they need to rid VHF channels 2,3,4 for BPL. Digital TV does not work that good on these lower vhf channels anyway and their are currently limited ammount of dtv channels in this range because of electrical interference. Problem solved!!!Reallocate digital tv channels using channel 2-4 frequency after February 2009 and assign it to unused television spectrum. Also assign channels 2-4 for as part of the ISM/Un-license Band. | |
|  | |  |
|
|