 |  | GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA | Re: Cable is an Info Svc; so makes sense BPL is too But who will be the regulatory agent for BPL? FCC didn't want to regulate cable and pushed it down to the states to handle, who in turn pushed it down to county/city authorities. How should we expect this to apply, if at all, to BPL? | |
| | | 
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: Cable is an Info Svc; so makes sense BPL is too It's probably a moot point anyway. We're coming to the end of the "Year of BPL", and it seems like it's the third year that has been declared as "the year". I think you're going to see companies focusing BPL deployments primarily on grid management and not Internet access. However, it's a tough decision since there's several established low-bandwidth PLC based systems that do meter reading and grid management with less risk, hassle, and presumably less cost than BPL. | |
| ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16
Stratford, CT | not This will never work. | |
| | 
sdjfhksjhdfksd
@midco.net
| Re: not i talked to my rep in us house about bpl and bad things about it the hams have been saying amd reporting and i gave him all the links and arrl stuff bad about bpl and he say that anything with bpl in government is being looked at heavly by the us miltary as good thing and any one who messes with bpl issue in the government should be ready for a big fight. that's what sayed to me about he feel uneasy about even talking about it with other members of the government but sayed he and other reps and senators feel that bpl is not very good and should not go into mass production around the country based on all reports and how other government agencys are tring to force this issue. | |
| | | 89707828
join:2006-10-24
Chicago, IL | Re: not Anyone got a decoder ring? | |
| | | | 
trisomy
Premium
join:2002-05-23
Houston, TX | Re: not said by 89707828  :Anyone got a decoder ring? lol | |
| | | 
aaron8301
I can't get myself to go away.
join:2005-01-03
Clarkston, WA | Another reason unregistered users should not be allowed to post:
Apparently this one failed 3rd grade English.
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. | |
| | | 
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
 ·Embarq
| For those who are so unintelligent they can't sort through someone with poor writing skills, and for others who are so awesome they are in better than anyone whose writing skill are beneath them let's give this a go.
I talked to someone who is a representative in the House about BPN and told him about the bad things it causes. I also explained what the ham operators have been saying and reporting. I gave him links reporting bad things about BPL. He said that the government is looking heavily into BPN. The US military sees BPL as being good. Anyone who messes with BPL issues in the government should be ready for a big fight. That's what he said to me. He feels uneasy even talking about it with other members of the government, but said he and other reps and senators feel that BPL isn't good and should not go into mass production around the country. This is based on all reports and how other government agencies are trying to force this issue. I hope everyone feel better about themselves now.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by sdjfhksjhdfksd :
he say that anything with bpl in government is being looked at heavly by the us miltary as good thing and any one who messes with bpl issue in the government should be ready for a big fight.
I call BS. | |
| | GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| said by ITALIAN926 :This will never work. Then you have nothing to fear, right?  So why are you wasting your time trying to put it down? | |
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| who cares? it's still an also ran technology.
Must be time for the FCC to remind everyone of this fabulous promise of "competition"; don't pay attention to those mergers behind the curtain and the fact that there are very few (1? 2?) BPL deployments of any consequence. | |
| 
richk_1957
If ..Then..Else
Premium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith | Something I don't see OK, they've re-classified BPL as a information service, but haven't changed anything else. I [or any other ham] starts his low band rig and BPL is history. And they can't say a thing. | |
|
trisomy
Premium
join:2002-05-23
Houston, TX | Upside The most ubiquitous 'last mile' in hard-wire infrastructure appears to now be supported by the FCC. I smell crisp Franklins in this decision! | |
| 
Fox McCloud
Ron Paul Enthusiast
join:2006-07-23
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Verizon BroadbandA..
| BPL interference and the ARRL What some fail to realize is that the ARRL operates BPL directly at their HQ in Connecticut, and they have no reported any problems (this is the BPL that operates on low voltage). Thus, it doesn't create any interference.
If that kind of BPL is deployed everywhere, I see no reason to complain. | |
| |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: BPL interference and the ARRL said by Fox McCloud :What some fail to realize is that the ARRL operates BPL directly at their HQ in Connecticut, and they have no reported any problems (this is the BPL that operates on low voltage). Thus, it doesn't create any interference. Yes and no. The particular system at ARRL HQ doesn't create interference to Amateur Radio spectrum. Amateur Radio spectrum is only about 9% of the HF (1-30 Mhz) spectrum, the rest is military, aeronautical, maritime, government, CB, international broadcasting and others. Plus, the 30 to 80 Mhz range some systems use contains business and public safety two-way frequencies. While notching can address these other users on a case-by-case basis, it still places the burden on wireless licensees of identifying the interference, proving it's the BPL system causing it, and requesting resolution from the BPL carrier which historically has been a long and drawn out process. It's a concept that basically puts unlicensed services with nearly the same privileges as licensed spectrum users, something the FCC has never quite realized or acknowledged or explored the implications.
I will agree though that the BPL system approach with wireless as the backbone and BPL on the LV drops to the home makes the most sense and has the best chance of succeeding. | |
| | | W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| Re: BPL interference and the ARRL Interference update:
The system that is installed at ARRL HQ is made by Motorola. It uses their Canopy wireless as a backbone, and then HomePlug modems on the LV (240 v) wiring to get into premises. HomePlug has included notches in the Amateur bands in its specificiations. The Motorola modems have additional filters to improve the notches. When tested at ARRL HQ, the signal was loud and clear outside the Amateur bands (ie, shortwave broadcast), but inaudible in Amateur spectrum. When the W1AW radio bulletin transmitters fired up with 1000 watts simultaneously on 7 Amateur bands, system was not affected.
One other BPL system that has been pretty thorougly evaluated by ARRL is the Current Technologies system, as deployed in Cincinnati, OH. It operates 32-48 MHz on overhead lines, and uses HomePlug modems to get into premises. Although, IMHO, some interference is possible, to date, there have been no interference reports from Cincinatti. The BPL signals there are loud and clear from 32-48 MHz and as I drove around in Cincinnati, I noted that the noise in the shortwave broadcast bands was pretty strong. Amateurs have reported some interference to shortwave broadcast, but none have filed a formal complaint about same to the utility, to Current, to ARRL or to the FCC.
Other BPL has not fared well. The DS2 generation 1 products were notorious for causing interference, and the notching is not very good. Just yesterday, I was in Briarcliff Manor, NY and noted that the Ambient DS2/G1 system there being operated under an experimental license was again quite loud in some of the Amateur bands in some areas of the installation.
There is some progress with notching. DS2 has, for example, improved the generation 2 notch depth. I have only had an opportunity to look at a couple of DS2/G2 systems, and to get a few preliminary reports from local Amateurs. So far, the improved notching is looking promising, although based on the past records of some of the BPL manufacturers involved, it is necessary that they and ARRL work closely together to answer each others' questions before I would expect ARRL to make public statements such as it has done for Motorola and Current Technologies' products. So far, some manufacturers have talked about talking about this; others have started to work with ARRL and/or local Amateurs.
The premise that interference is a dead issue, however, is far from over. The BPL system in Briarcliff Manor is an older technology, but still generating strong interference to Amateur Radio. That interference may or may not be greater than the level that the FCC permits for interfernce to mobile stations, but the bottom line is that it is there; it has not been measured and, so far, the manufacturer has not done anything effective to address it. To the contrary, they have steadfastly claimed that the interference doesn't exist. (I am thinking that a video showing this over the entire area may be needed to really document how to do it wrong.)
Other manufacturers have gone well beyond the requirements of the rules (indicating, of course, what the rules SHOULD have been, to help manufacturers know what is necessary to have a successful product). HomePlug, for example, has fixed, effective and permanent notches in its industry specification. This works; to date, with millions of HomePlug devices installed, ARRL has not received any reports of harmful interference.
Yet the rest of the BPL industry steadfastedly resists effective rules and blocks any attempt to include this sort of mitigation in the developing IEEE BPL standards. This is, IMHO, a tremendously wasted opportunity, and the evasive denials that have been the first reaction from this industry has, IMHO, been a factor in the slow deployment of BPL.
It is not a surprise to me that the largest major successes so far in BPL -- the Current deployment in Ohio (60,000 homes passed) and the pending 2,000,000 homes passed deployment in Dallas are based on technology that has effectively addressed EMC issues.
The other issue discussed in this post has been ingress -- interfernece TO BPL from licensed transmitters. We have seen very positive results from Motorola's approach. DS2-based systems, both G1 and G2, have shown immunity problems to as little as 5 watts. More recent tests conducted by ARRL showed the following general trend:
o 5 watts of in-band transmitter carrier stopped the system cold
o It took, however, 200 watts of out-of-band transmitter carrier to block the system
o Of note, the system auto recovered after about 30 seconds
o In band, 600 watts of transmitted voice signal, slowed the system down, but it did not stop operating. The slowdown appeared in bursts, with data getting through in between syllables.
All in all, this was pretty encouraging, as it shows that, if careful selection of frequency and notching is done to avoid locally used spectrum, transmitters like mobile low-band VHF and typical mobile Amateur operation will not take the BPL system out of service. Such interference will slow it down, with the probable effect that time-critical uses such as VOIP and streaming video would have issues over BPL near radio transmitters. (Of course, such issues could exist with other broadband technologies, too.)
To my knowledge, this is the first testing that has compared the interference from transmitted carriers (as test signals) and transmitted single-sideband voice and on/off keyed CW.
Ed Hare
ARRL Laboratory Manager
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06111
Tel: 860-594-0318
Email: W1RFI@arrl.org | |
| GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
|  Cable expensive. Telco No-upgrade. BPL & Muni Hopeful
And if all that fails, maybe someone could get BPL to muster resources with municipalities. | |
| GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| Any electrical coppoeratives doing this? Where I am located (Georgia), several electrical coops exists. I've always have great service delivered by the coops, as opposed to the non-coops (like Georgia Power), and would greatly endorse my coops entrance into BPL.
Considering my areas's cable operator just raised cablemodem rates 34% (to nearly $60/month) for basic cable broadband service, and the local telco soiled itself for resale to SBC with a platform for my community capable of only c.1995 broadband levels (1.5x256), we are in a need to find competition in some form. | |
|
guesting1111
@optonline.net | interference is a no issue with FCC due to newer technology Fact is that FCC already tested and approved some BPL gears for Commercial deployment nationwide.
Interference is a non-issue anymore !!! | |
| | | |
|
|
FCC To Nudge BPL Deployment
Cable is an Info Svc; so makes sense BPL is too