Zap, Crackle, PopPower Line Broadband buzzes onward ( old news - 01:02PM Wednesday Jul 16 2003) tags: alternativesPower line broadband continues to gather momentum despite growing interference concerns. The technology, though far from practical use in the States, could be a significant boost to competition in the broadband market, with providers suggesting they'll offer $30 or even $20 monthly fees (though talk is cheap). FCC chairman Michael Powell earlier this year toured a power line broadband enabled home in Maryland and gave his blessing to the technology. Powell watched the movie "Ice Age" on a flat-screen 42-inch television streaming from another computer miles away, checked his voice mail over an Internet telephone, and watched his picture get printed after it had been taken by the front door security system. "This is within striking distance of being the third major broadband pipe into the home," said Powell at the time. "I'm a little bummed it's not (available) in my area."Dubbing it a "monumental moment" last April, the FCC voted unanimously to solicit public comment and begin seriously exploring broadband Internet service delivered via power lines. Known officially as BPL (broadband over power lines) at the FCC (its other monicker is power line connectivity or PLC), the inquiry was launched in order to better examine delivery methods of the technology and explore potential interference issues. Labeled as Docket 03-104 over at the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website, public response from the tech community has been anything but gentle. The most outspoken group so far has been amateur radio operators, who claim that BPL poses "significant interference potential" to HF and low-VHF spectrum use between 2 and 80 MHz (a synopsis of their concerns can be found in this American Radio Relay League article). However HAM radio operators aren't alone in their concerns. Out of the roughly 2,000 comments to the FCC on BPL, around ninety-nine percent of them contained some serious skepticism concerning possible interference. The comments are all available at the FCC website, and come from a variety of groups including the IEEE, the National Academy of Sciences ( concerned about radio astronomy), the Wireless Communications Association, and the National Association of Broadcasters , among many others. While PLC overseas has been growing quickly (Sweden and Scotland in particular), an increasing number of trials and small scale applications have been popping up across the United States. The technology is being field tested in a dozen different states, by utility companies like Pepco in Washington, D.C., Ameren in St. Louis, and Pennsylvania Power & Light. Responses by participants of these trials have so far been overwhelmingly positive. Ossining, New York has wired its law enforcement officers with broadband, via Consolidated Edison's power grid in one of several trials. Among the scattered tests for power line connectivity springing up around the country, trials by Missouri based Ameren Corp seem to be the most advanced. Users recently gave feedback on a 55-home trial taking place in a north Cape Girardeau neighborhood. Subjects are seeing speeds about 5 to 10 times faster than dial-up, and the trial, which has been running since last June, is expected to continue through the summer. "I'm optimistic," says the CEO of Big River Telephone, Ameren's trial partner. "I think the chances are good. It will offer a new way to get people high-speed Internet. It will also be good for competition. It should bring down prices, and that's always good for the consumer." Related:- Sprint Says They'll Play Nice With Google Voice
- ISPs Don't Really Want Per Byte Billing
- Does Your ISP Still Offer Dial-Up Backup?
- BitTorrent Gets A Little Smarter
- Boston Wonders Where Its FiOS Is
- Apple Cooking Up New $30 A Month TV Service?
- Comcast Launches Wireless Broadband In Philly
- Verizon: Droid Tethering Will Cost $30 Extra
|
page: 1 · 2  |
  Unit649 I B U, Who U B? Premium join:2000-01-22 Stockton, CA
·Comcast
| Trials exist.... If trials exist, then the people who are concerned with the interference that it may cause should be allowed to check to see what interference it may be causing.
What better way to see if it does? If the technology is being tested in the US, it should be checked out and the concerns addressed. I find it interesting that none of these companies are denying it does and asking for people to come out and prove that it doesn't, which makes me wonder now if it actually DOES cause more interference.
If the technology is sound and doesn't cause it, I would think the people trying to get approval would be trumpeting to come check it, test it, it doesn't do anything of the sort! -- U ::::Founder, ForeverChat IRC Network:::: »www.foreverchat.net | |
|   insomniac Oh Yeah Premium join:2002-09-22 Naperville, IL clubs:
·AT&T Midwest
| I'm all for it, if... ... they can find a way to make it not interfere (or interfere less) with existing technologies like amateur radio. As someone who is planning on getting a ham license very soon, I'd rather not see problems arise because of this. -- If everything seems to be going well, you've obviously overlooked something. | |
|  |  |  |  |  creosote
join:2003-07-04 Panorama City, CA
| One picture is worth a thousand words Somewhere near the top of this post (»Re: I'm all for it, if...) moonpuppy posted a link to the ARRL web site. Here's the URL to a .wmv file from that site that "ya'all" should watch before continuing to drool over your dreams of BPL for the masses:
http://www.darc.de/referate/emv/plc/030103-PLC_Video_Fulpmes.wmv
The film was made in Austria, but no special language skills are required for interpretation - just look and listen and it will be obvious that BPL is not being promoted "for the people".
Remember that the FCC was established to protect both radio amateurs and the public alike. It's a two way street - not only does BPL have the capability of messing up HF and low VHF operations (and most likely many other bands as well), but those operations can likewise mess up your BPL nirvanha. The FCC's primary job is to manage allocation of space on the radio spectrum to prevent these type of problems from happening. Let's hope that the FCC acts in the public interest this time around.
PLEASE, take a look at the video and THINK about what is happening here...
(NOT a HAM myself, just a concerned citizen!) | |
|  |  |   bluesun
join:2003-08-14 Hughson, CA | Re: I'm all for it, if...
What is all the interference from? The signal is in the powerline. | |
|  |  |  |  moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: I'm all for it, if... The interference is from the BPL signals.
Ever drive under power lines listening to AM radio? Notice how the radio becomes nothing but static? Realize that the power lines are NOT shielded and therefore will radiate the BPL signals all over the place. | |
|  |  |  |  |   bluesun
join:2003-08-14 Hughson, CA | Re: I'm all for it, if...
Does BPL affect the radios (2 ways) or what equipment does it mess with? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: I'm all for it, if... It basically affects all receivers (including those in 2 way radios.) The signals from BPL are so powerful, they make receiving any signals nearly impossible unless transmitter is much more powerful (we are talking close to a kilowatt just to start!) Right now, most public service and safety users in the 30-40Mhz area have transmitters in the 300 watt range. Get a fire truck or police car close to BPL lines and forget about that call from dispatch. All SWL (short wave listening) would be gone and even parts of the AM radio band would be useless.
The line itself is NOT shielded so the BPL signals not only travel on the lines but radiate out. | |
|   oliphant5 Got Identity? Premium join:2003-05-24 Corona, CA
| Hmmmmm...report Powell to the MPAA said by Article:
FCC chairman Michael Powell earlier this year toured a power line broadband enabled home in Maryland and gave his blessing to the technology. Powell watched the movie "Ice Age" on a flat-screen 42-inch television streaming from another computer miles away, checked his voice mail over an Internet telephone, and watched his picture get printed after it had been taken by the front door security system. "This is within striking distance of being the third major broadband pipe into the home," said Powell at the time.
Isn't rebroadcasting that movie illegal...seeing as what's really happening with streaming is a "copy" is being made, cached before playing? If so, naughty naughty Mr. Powell. If not...who's to say how long I can keep a cached anything? -- "Countries...have a right to be free, and we a right to aid them, as a strong man has a right to assist a weak one assailed by a robber or murderer." --Thomas Jefferson, 1816. | |
|  |   Smokey I killed the Wabbit Premium join:2003-05-20 Va Beach clubs: | Re: Hmmmmm...report Powell to the MPAA OH great, "here we go again" | |
|  |  |   whateverthrillsya
@ameritech.com
from: koitsu 
| Re: Hmmmmm...report Powell to the MPAA What do you expect from a person who has made nearly 900 posts in less than two months of membership?
Maybe we should pitch in and buy him a life. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  rip_sketches
join:2002-05-25 Dallas, GA | Re: Could be worse! Yup, you are never beyond making the pettiest of comments. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   oliphant5 Got Identity? Premium join:2003-05-24 Corona, CA | Re: Could be worse! Pot, meet kettle. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  rip_sketches
join:2002-05-25 Dallas, GA | Re: Could be worse! and clueless. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  David95037
join:2003-04-16 Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| Re: Could be worse! The very detailed data from the ARRL and many other folks speaks for itself.
If you read the comments from the power companies, you will find that there is a complete lack of any real interference data.
The only FUD is the myths being propagated by the BPL lobbyists. | |
|  |  |  |   murdok6100 Avatar. Get It, Avatar?
join:2002-06-20
| said by whateverthrillsya: What do you expect from a person who has made nearly 900 posts in less than two months of membership?
Maybe we should pitch in and buy him a life.
More guts than you Pal.
murdok610 | |
|  |  |  |   ib50MbSoon Formerly TwoKDialup Premium join:2002-06-07 Coloma, MI
| said by whateverthrillsya: Maybe we should pitch in and buy him a life.
Maybe we should pitch in and buy you a membership, unregistered Ameritech.com.
But getting back to the topic, the ARRL may have a valid concern. However, I have to wonder how many of these complaints are coming from loyal telco shills. After all, after the crap the telcos pulled on the tri-cities, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was an organized effort to squash competition any way they can. Maybe the smellcos are spreading the old FUD to slow BPL deployment? -- The whole truth and nothing but the truth at »www.teletruth.org | |
|  |   MRNVGVUP
join:2003-04-12 Sharon, PA | Re: Hmmmmm... cached
I respect your "ingenuity of thinking" on the cached comment.
Interesting...
peace | |
|  |  |   aSic application specific Premium join:2001-05-17 Wakulla, FL clubs:
| Re: Great Idea! AMEN BROTHER! My thoughts exactly. I'm less than a mile from the cable termination point in the middle of a subdivision, with cable on all sides within 1/2mi of the division..but not within. Expand first, then make it better! -- "I did not have an affair with that woman, Monica Lewinsky" | |
|  |  |   dslwanter Why would I want DSL? I have FTTH Premium join:2002-12-16 Lowellville, OH
·Armstrong Zoom In..
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Great Idea! Ha you too!!! Cable Starts 3/4 mile down the road, then again 1 mile down the road but I can't get it! And DSL forget it, one more time I get a date when that's coming out and it doesn't, I'll just have to forget about it all together! EXPAND FIRST! ============================================================ "It's time for a nationwide Cable or DSL Broadband Service, sure the price may come down, but more importantly, EVERYONE could get it." ============================================================ | |
|  |  squison
join:2001-07-07 Decatur, GA
·AT&T Southeast
| If this actually works the way its supposed to, cable and dsl broadband services will be completely obsolete, not to mention phone lines, cable tv lines. And, the rollout for such a thing is easy.. wire the power station and an entire grid is hooked up, as opposed to DSL or Cable where a rollout for a similar area would cost a much more substatial amount.
Not to mention this is leaps and bounds faster than the fastest cable or DSL. You want a 'nationwide Cable or DSL Broadband service', well, with the relative low cost of implementation, the fact that the lines are already there.. as soon as they work out the bugs - here's your national broadband service.
edit: There's a few different implentations going on with this.. The above only really applies with the one originally started by MediaFusion a couple years ago that runs over the microwave field around power lines. Ones that tack on lines onto power lines -- well, I'd hardly call that anything marvelous. [text was edited by author 2003-07-16 16:34:21] | |
|  |  |  keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01 Youngsville, PA
·Teliax VOIP
·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| Re: Great Idea! The way I understand the technology it is not that easy. This type of broadband would not really be a threat to cable or DSL.
Wiring the power station does not enable the entire grid, that would be easy. You have to jump over transformers because the signal will not pass through them. In the US I think a transformer serves about 5 homes so you have to go to every transformer and find a way to jump over them. This is one thing that makes it unlikely to find wide deployments in the US (in Europe a transformer serves 200 homes).
It is not faster than cable or DSL, especially after you put a few people on it. It is far less scalable than cable. Considering some of the limitations of actually getting good signal without absorbing things from the environment I bet you could get a good meg or two, if you are very very very very lucky.
Deployments are expensive and not practical in rural areas. Basically the technology is probably going to be deployed in areas where it can make money and not take too much to deploy (like very dense areas).
The technology is not a breakthrough. It is rather simple. It also is flawed in its designed. Power grids were designed to hold in voltage, nothing more. Over time these grids are a radio nightmare simply because they did not have to care much about any thing but voltage. Passing radio traffic over the lines, the way it is presented now, is a flawed design. Any engineer that has designed and maintained a cable broadband network, dealt with radio communications, or just about any other type of design sees the problem. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  markopoleo
join:2003-04-02 Bonne Terre, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Great Idea! That 5-10 homes is overcome easily with wireless from Transformer to houses. It provides up to 100 per transformer. That is how most get around it. -- If PLC goes mainstream, every other broadband provider will be considered what dialup is today...not broadband. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  David95037
join:2003-04-16 Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| Re: Great Idea! - NOT The wireless idea has been tried, didnt cover 100 houses. In fact the problem was great yard coverage, hopeless in-house coverage.
Key issue is the huge amount of RF pollution from BPL, when the IEEE, the National Academy of Sciences, the Wireless Communications Association, and the National Association of Broadcasters all are concerned enough to file comments then it is time to take notice. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   thejas
@ptd.net
| keyboard everything has flaws including cable and dsl. the key here is implementing it is simpler and cheaper; plain and simple. try getting dsl out to my place for the same price powerline internet will be. not gonna happen to much added junction boxes and things of the sort. powerlines are laid and ready to go. easy. even if it is slower than normal cable or dsl, people will take it for the 20 bucks they are paying for ol' 56k. cause u know it'll be faster than that no matter what. | |
|  |   thejas
@ptd.net
| dlswanter u don't get it. say this tech takes two years to come out. u still won't have cable or dsl by then. and if u do it won't be cheaper. u have electricity right now. all u'll need is a modem. thats it. end of story. you can't beat that. all the people that don't have cable or dsl will love this idea. and all the ones that don't have a choice in high speed (like me). i get 80k d/l rates on cable and while it is reliable i want more speed. but i can't get dsl out here. and the company will not offer more speed. even for more money! so even for some with cable or dsl, the competition pricing alone is worth the risk. then my cable company will have no choice but to start throwin' some incentives my way. this technology is great! and let the ham operators unite against this crap who cares!?!? the fcc won't pass it if that is the case. so stop ur bitchin'! | |
|  |  |   dslwanter Why would I want DSL? I have FTTH Premium join:2002-12-16 Lowellville, OH
·Armstrong Zoom In..
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Great Idea! Stop my b*tchin'? I was making a point, tell me what I was "b*tchin about"? First of all this technology will take far more than 2 years to come out, we're lucky if it takes 20. Did you read the article before you posted? "the technology, though far from practical use in the States", this is part of one of the first lines in the article. Then you tell me all I need is a modem? Well I have Cable TV and Phone Service, so all I need is a modem for that to get it with that to right? The service has to be upgraded before you can just plug a modem in there buddy. It will be quite a while. Updating the technology of one transformer will be like updating one central office to DSL, plain and simple, the equipment would have to be in the transformer for the transformer to transmit the signal in the lines, my electricity does not come Straight from Ohio Edison's "main office", it has to come through the transformer before it comes into my home. Compare this to a central phone office of a city...the phone company does not run the lines straight to the customers home, the equipment to run your phone service is in the central office, thus your service is powered by your central office. Cable will the be leading broadband service period, all though I can't get it, my Cable company (Classic-Cable) is the only company in this area that does not offer cable internet, ao about 98% of the Mahoning Valley I would say can get broadband. Now their one office covers this area, and other areas scattered about this area, when they upgrade their service, the scattered areas and myself will be able to get Cable Internet, because that office powers all these areas. So that's what leads me to believe that each and every transformer would have to be upgraded in order to make this a nationwide thing. This will be just as slow if not slower than DSL's expansion.
============================================================ "It's time for a nationwide Cable or DSL Broadband Service, sure the price may come down, but more importantly, EVERYONE could get it." ============================================================ [text was edited by author 2003-07-18 11:46:20] | |
|  |  |  |  David95037
join:2003-04-16 Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| Re: Great Idea! NOT The BPL spin machine has convinced a lot of people that the whole country can just magically plug in to the Internet anywhere they choose, pure snake oil.
In reality a BPL DSLAM has to be installed next to the local 11,000 lines, connected to the lines, then every 2,000 feet a repeater is needed to boost the signal (and increase latency, BPL ping times will set new records). When it finally gets to the transformer next to your house a bridge from the 11,000 volt lines is needed to the 110V to your house. All of this will cost money for equipment and installation.
The economics rapidly come unwound for rural customers, the only reason that the BPL lobbyists are pushing the rural broadband angle is to try and persuade the FCC to let them pollute huge swathes of spectrum. | |
|   daHam
@209.137.x.x
| Expansion Please I am an Amateur Radio operator that only works the VHF frequencies... That's all I'm license to use... So I don't want any of my signal interfered with... At the same time - is there a reason why nobody is pushing hard for NGDLC / DSL over remote terminals etc... This is crazy... I work for a CLEC - can get DSL for peanuts - live only 2 miles from the CO - but can't get DSL due to DLC... Forget BPL - if anything how about commercial 802.11 wifi networks?? | |
|  |  bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus
| Re: Expansion Please said by daHam: if anything how about commercial 802.11 wifi networks??
While I'm not too happy about BPL getting push forward due to interference OUTSIDE of the Amateur Radio band, I'm not for slapping WIFI all over the place when the telcos and MSOs could EASILY be serving an area. Its time for the people and the government to get on the telcos and make them deliver their promise on broadband to everyone (we've already paid for it several times over), be it in the form of fibre to the house like they promised or just getting DSL to under-served areas. -- If you could read my mind, here's what you'd see.. Kinda. | |
|  |   zoom314 Superman Premium join:2001-04-30 Yermo, CA
| said by daHam: This is crazy... I work for a CLEC - can get DSL for peanuts - live only 2 miles from the CO - but can't get DSL due to DLC... Forget BPL - if anything how about commercial 802.11 wifi networks??
Well around where I live, DSL will never be available beyond the 3 mile limit in Verizon (ex-GTE, ex-Contel) Territory. Why? It's ISDN and You'd have to be real foolish to get that as It's Un-Regulated and as a result for 128/128k service, It's Very Expensive cost wise to go with ISDN in California when It comes to Data Access and It always will be, As It's a Telco Cash COW. MOO MOO MOOOOOOLLA  Unless They have changed the Law and I haven't heard of anything in that area yet. -- Charter Pipeline rules in Hesperia, CA, Verizon (ex-GTE) sucks..... | |
|  David95037
join:2003-04-16 Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| BPL - The Wave Report comments The Wave Report is a highly influential newsletter that has an uncanny knack of finding the real story behind the PR spin. They have been following the BPL issue closely with a number of insightful comments.
A brief extract from their latest newsletter on the NOI and the FCC's thinking is below;
More information is here; »www.wave-report.com/other-html-f···ine3.htm
Full details on the Wave report are here; »www.wave-report.com »www.3dlinks.com/
***Broadband over Power Line FCC NOI Update By James Sneeringer (July 9)
The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) opened a Notice of Inquiry into broadband over power line (BPL) access technology earlier this year, with special attention paid to possible interference issues.
Today at the WCA 2003 conference in Washington, DC, the WAVE Report spoke with Alan Scrime, Chief of the Policy and Rules Division of the OET, concerning the progress of the NOI. Alan made several points:
- The comments period just ended on July 8, and the total number of comments was almost 2000.
- Amateur radio enthusiasts were very active in submitting comments, detailing concerns they have over possible interference from BPL access systems.
- The comment period is over now, and the reply comment period will end on August 6.
- The FCC should have something from this NOI to the public by about the end of the year. However, the timing is dependent on the Commissioners' schedule, and so there are no promises made.
- The OET and FCC in general are excited by the possibility of BPL access as a competitive consumer broadband service. But, they have a clear duty to protect incumbent users of the spectrum utilized by BPL access services. The commission will do as much as it can to encourage this technology and industry--within the bounds of conservative assessments of its impacts on existing spectrum users.
The WAVE Report site contains a tutorial on the BPL NOI written by James Stenger, a telecommunications attorney who works within the BPL industry. The address is: »www.wave-report.com/tutorials/bpl.htm
The amateur radio's response to the NOI has been organized by the ARRL (American Radio Relay League), the national association for amateur radio. The ARRL filed a 120 page comments document with the FCC asking that BPL not be allowed to go forward. The filing can be found on the ARRL web site: »www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/et03-104/
Broadband over powerline is a technology that uses electric power distribution wires to carry a high-frequency data signal. In- home powerline data communications use the power lines inside a house to create a local area network. They are commercially available and standardized under the HomePlug Powerline Alliance. BPL access technology uses outside electric distribution lines to deliver a broadband signal to homes. At least five vendors have trial deployments of BPL access technology with electric utilities in the US and around the world. | |
|  David95037
join:2003-04-16 Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| BPL growth in Scotland - update + interference Scotland has about 100 BPL/PLC/PLT users which may be significant growth for BPL but for any other Internet delivery technology is a drop in the ocean.
For a detailed interference complaint on one of the Scottish operations check; »www.qsl.net/rsgb_emc/CRIEFF%20No···n_1.html | |
|  funbill
join:2003-07-08 Aurora, CO | Sure speeds seem ok Anyone know what kinda pings ud get with power internet, seems like an awful long travel distance to power centers? | |
|  |   CanOpener4
join:2003-06-23 Brooklyn, NY | Zap! Crackle! Fried!? LMAO!!!!! Indeed! | |
|  MI0706
join:2003-05-12 Crawfordsville, IN
| Hmmmmmm Nearly 2000 comments concerning BPL and 99% of that was against it...
Nearly 10,000,000 households (that is a conservative estimate) can't get broadband because of their location... I would guess (and it's only a guess) that of those 10,000,000, 30% would want broadband... That's approximately 3,000,000 households wanting real broadband, but they can't get it because it's not cost effective for the Tel Co's or the Cable Co's...
Do the math... 3,000,000 >>>>> 1980... I don't like the idea of anyone suffering in this... But, since I'm not a HAM operator and don't know anyone who is a HAM operator, I would much rather have broadband than HAM... | |
|  |  See 8 replies to this post | |
 vic102482 Premium join:2002-04-30 Upper Marlboro, MD | WHat are the speeds? What speeds will we be looking at? I didnt see any reference in the artile. | |
|  |  See 14 replies to this post | |
 |  |  |  David95037
join:2003-04-16 Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| The myth of BPL and rural areas The claim that BPL is good for rural deployment is yet another myth propagated by the BPL lobbyists. In essence it is bait and switch. The BPL strategy is to get the FCC to allow the high levels of interference / pollution as the FCC is focused on getting broadband to communities that dont have it
In reality, if the BPL lobbyists succeed, they will immediately focus on the wealthy suburban markets that are profitable (and already have cable and DSL) and ignore the rural areas.
DSL can work out to about ~ 16,000 feet from the central office. BPL can only go 2,000 feet from the BPL equivalent of a DSLAM, then it needs an expensive repeater installed by an engineer trained to work with 11,000 volt cables. So for a 16,000 foot run 8 BPL repeaters are needed. At the customers pole transformer a bridge needs to be installed to couple the signals from the 11,000 volt line to the 110 volt line (shudder to think what would happen if the bridge failed).
However the math is worked, there is no way they can implement this vast array of expensive equipment in rural areas with any hope of meeting the projected pricing.
The existing DSL broadband technology is proven and could be provided to almost everyone who has a phone, the barriers are political not technical. The solution to universal broadband lies in ensuring the phone companies serve all of their customers equally. BPL is a broken technology that is a pure distraction to the objective of universal broadband. | |
|  |  See 9 replies to this post | |
 sfcnslick17
join:2003-04-23 Spanish Fork, UT | . this is in a sense making the entire country a huge antennae. This technology will take decades (mabey centuries) before the technology is avilible to make this work without disturbing other RF devices. | |
|   Dirk Daring
join:2000-08-03 Ashburn, VA
| Wireless With the advances in wireless this isn't even needed. IT goes what, 16,000 feet? Bah. Wireless can go for miles, even with non line of sight and at the same or better bandwidth. A huge majority of this nation already has cell towers up and operational. What we should be focusing efforts on is using these.
Dirk -- Date last purchased an RIAA managed music CD: Dec 2001. | |
|   asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| Sign of lacking confidence in one's argument... is when people start throwing out huge numbers of claims and arguments in the hope that something will stick and that sheer quantity will win out:)
It's shared, speeds will be crap It will only help urban markets, not rural users. It will be too expensive, the economics don't work out. as well as the original claims about interference, which are now becoming "it will wreck cable, dsl, tv, much of radio"
If these claims are even half true then one wonders why opponents are so mobilized against this. A technology that is such an obvious failure is never going to go anywhere and the issue is moot. One wonders if they really believe what they say, given that they seem to simultaneously tell us that it will never work, yet seem to fear that it will and expend energy fighting it. Does anyone really believe that commercial roll out will go forward or that the fcc will allow deployment if it wrecks so much present infrastructure, interfering with dsl, cable ,tv? No matter how much you want to argue corruption, these people aren't that stupid.
I would also like to address a couple of other points. 1. That most of the comments received were against. This isn't uncommon and it doesn't really prove much. It is generally those who feel that they will be adversely affected who mobilize for these things. The general public isn't interested one way or the other, until a saleable product that affects them is available. These issues aren't sexy issues that excite the majority of human beings.
2. That we should focus on getting cable and especially dsl to expand. I'm not opposed to this, but one shouldn't underestimate the effect of having a THIRD wireline capability into the home. Considering the long term market environment, having a third player and having full dsl coverage are not at all comparable.
---
Again, we don't really know yet. There should be analysis of interference by an INDEPENDENT third party with no agenda to push.
What we will probably find is that there will be some increased interference, but not the massive confusion predicted. Then there will be endless debates and fighting about what side effects are tolerable/reasonable and what aren't. These issues will become less compelling as the technology matures.
Spectrum interference is not really a "law of nature". Interference is not all or nothing, noise free environment or complete confusion. It involves physical laws certainly, but also social questions and design questions, questions of the design and capabilities of the receivers, present reasonable cost computational power, expectations, what is a tolerable level of interference, what is a tolerable rate of error in the system.
Most of these variables are susceptible to human transformation. These are not hard and fast questions of physical laws but involve social negotiation and are affected by technological change in human systems. | |
|  |  zentec
join:2002-01-05 Monroe, MI
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Sign of lacking confidence in one's argument... [quote]...
"Spectrum interference is not really a "law of nature". Interference is not all or nothing, noise free environment or complete confusion. It involves physical laws certainly, but also social questions and design questions, questions of the design and capabilities of the receivers, present reasonable cost computational power, expectations, what is a tolerable level of interference, what is a tolerable rate of error in the system."
[end quote]...
As someone that has designed RF receivers, I seem to remember the laws being fairly immutable. And it's pretty much game over as far as the receiver is concerned when the desired signal and interfering signal close within a couple db of one another.
There is no mitigating receiver design consideration when it comes to interference to the fundamental by a signal on the same frequency. They just mix in the front-end of the receiver and that is all she wrote.
I happen to agree that there are instances when a tolerable level of interference exists. Channelized or shared-repeater situations come to mind where at any given point, you may interfere with other users. But let's be realistic here, PLC interferes with vast numbers of users in different radio services across huge swaths of spectrum.
If some new technology came to light that allowed 747's to fly cross country on 100 gallons of fuel, people would be all over it as a great economic benefit. But do you really think they'd be all that happy if the stipulation of that technology is that the aircraft had to fly at 900 feet above the ground? The planes would cause immense noise pollution over huge areas of the country and no where could you move to escape it. Sure, great economic benefit to the airline industry and the economy as a whole. But a seriously expensive trade unless you happen to be totally deaf.
A tad-bit of hyperbole, but I think it demonstrates the basis of the objections. | |
|  |  |  David95037
join:2003-04-16 Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| Cape Girardeau BPL - Slow, Expensive, Pollution BPL in Cape Girardeau - Slow, expensive and a gross polluter
From the Southeast Missourian on the Cape Girardeau BPL test site; "It's working out to be about five to 10 times faster than what people are getting with dial-up."
5 to 10 times dial-up is 250K to 500K assuming 50K dial up speed. Does 250K really qualify as broadband?
Pricing is quoted as; The trial participants have gotten the service for free. One qualm that a couple of trial participants had is that if it costs $50 a month, it might not be worth it.
Slow, expensive and a gross polluter. [text was edited by author 2003-07-17 21:41:05] | |
|  |  Sand_tiger
join:2003-07-18 Mount Vernon, IN
| Re: Cape Girardeau BPL - Slow, Expensive, Pollution my family built a 175,000 dollar house in the country and now i would like to be able to get online at speeds faster than 56k..why shouldn't this technology come out i mean i've read all the posts here so i know i am going to get flamed for posting this but...ANYTHING that is faster than that. I have to pack my Liquid cooled P4c 2.4ghs along with a monitor over to one of my friends homes just to update my computer. not to mention if i have to update my linux box...i just believe that the FCC needs to stop imposing limits on 56k. if they would do that then this arguement would be moot.
also i agree the limits on cable and dsl are political not physical...
one more thing. the whole subject of using cellular towers to transmit for wireless i think that it may be a good idea. but i don't think that you can get the range out of them. i have problems taking my laptop farther than about 300 feet away from my wireless router. | |
|  |  |  David95037
join:2003-04-16 Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| Re: Cape Girardeau BPL - Slow, Expensive, Pollution said by Sand_tiger : i know i am going to get flamed for posting this but...ANYTHING that is faster than that.
one more thing. the whole subject of using cellular towers to transmit for wireless i think that it may be a good idea. but i don't think that you can get the range out of them. i have problems taking my laptop farther than about 300 feet away from my wireless router.
Why would anyone flame you?
Broadband should be ubiquitous just like the phone service.
If you are in a rural area BPL will never be an option. There are a growing number of Wireless ISPs, over 2,000 at the last count. Wireless is excellent for rural applications as you can cover a wide area quickly (and Wireless does go further than 300 feet). Check the WISP forums for more info. | |
|   zabes63
join:2003-04-05 Batavia, IL
| Muni Ready Broadband
This would be so cool if they get the bugs worked out of this.
Overnight hundreds of local operated electrical outfits will be a small investment away from providing Broadband services. -- Click here to visit Tri-City Broadband | |
|  Streaks
join:2002-10-10 Remington, VA
| was just wondering... With all the mention of them. Does anyone actually know how a transformer works? I'm sure you electricians do but the other folks don't seem to. Personally I'm not sure why the field wouldn't propergate past a transformer. I mean, that's all the unit does is induce voltage in coils using gauss. So wouldn't it simply ramp down the signal to each line?
And I've known a few linemen. It takes some common sense and training to be one.
My only real hessitation on this whole thing is that I race RC. And if it's going to affect my hobby then I'll do with 56K!
Personally I think data transfer is a way of life for the current world. That big business has to muddle around with the state of our evolution as a species sickens me. That we are limited in so many ways due to greed is grounds for revolt if ever I've heard any. Not just broadband either, lots of topics. Sickening!
Streaks | |
|  |  See 7 replies to this post | |
 | |  |
|
|