Jim Hampton wrote:
... stuff deleted ...
I suspect that BPL will go the same route; they'll try, perhaps, but it will
be in the cities and suburbs where they can make money (and they will have
competition *and* cause a lot of qrm). The low population density areas
will *still* not be served (except by satellite or, perhaps, dial-up).

I agree with this, except that a satellite link has too much latency to
support
VPN, so some of us rural folk are still stuck with only dialup (and
I$DN). There
is an outfit in town that's putting up terrestrial microwave links in
the area,
but they claim the County is stalling on the approval for the tower they
need
to service my area. Grrrr!

I give BPL little chance of success in my neighborhood - the PG&E lines
around here
generate so much hash that it would never fly. Had PG&E come out once
to look at
it aan it went away for awhile, but now that the hot weather's back so's
the noise.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

73,
L

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:37:23 -0400, Minnie Bannister
wrote:

|Yes, the technical standards need to be changed to allow BPL: require
|all power lines to be shielded.

The ones under ground and under water already are.

The problem will be when every house in your neighborhood is a big
#&%*(*& radiator. Or even worse when your KW wipes out the entire
Internet service in a few square miles.

I'm a rural customer of an electric cooperative. (I happen to use
them for my dialup ISP also)

A couple of years ago when I was having a bout of power line
interference I happened to talk to their VP for new technology,
engineer to engineer.

Among other things he told me that reading meters was a big expense
since their service area is huge, covering good parts of three
counties, one of which is the size of Connecticut. They (we, I'm a
part owner) have 29,000 customers and 2,400 miles of lines.

So they (we) tried a system of reading the meters remotely, using
(very) slow-speed data on the power lines. They couldn't even solve
the technical challenges of doing this and wound up changing out most
of the meters to ones with built in transmitters that can be
interrogated by a guy driving around in a pickup truck.

If they can't read my meter remotely how in the hell are they going to
supply me with high-speed data transmission? BTW, I've strongly
suggested that they don't try.

Wes Stewart wrote:
If they can't read my meter remotely how in the hell are they going to
supply me with high-speed data transmission? BTW, I've strongly
suggested that they don't try.

I've done the same with our cooperative here.

Personally, I think attempts to fight BPL through the political system
are a waste of time. The amateur radio community doesn't have the
financial resources to outbid the utilities for legislation.

What *will* stop BPL is economics.

Many of the expenses of offering broadband communications are
independent of transmission technology. Obtaining a backbone
connection, providing mail & web servers, customer support & billing are
all expenses that are the same whether you're providing BPL, DSL, or
cable modem service.

BPL has the additional disadvantage of requiring well-trained personnel
with expensive safety gear to maintain the infrastructure. Most cable
and DSL maintenance can be done on the ground.

BPL is at an advantage ONLY in very rural places, too small for cable
and too far from the CO for DSL. Such places don't have enough
customers to pay for the fixed infrastructure.

IMHO a few utilities will try full-scale rollouts of BPL - and will find
it doesn't sell enough to pay the expenses. It'll go the way of the
picturephone.

=============

If that doesn't work, we can tell the freeband community what's wiping
out 26-29MHz, and post a few photos of the BPL access equipment, and
then be sure to not get anywhere near a power pole without a bulletproof
vestgrin...

--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

"KØHB" wrote

While GWB calls for relaxing Part 15.....

There needs to be technical standards to make
possible new broadband technologies, such as the use of
high-speed communication directly over power lines. Power lines
were for electricity; power lines can be used for broadband
technology. So the technical standards need to be changed to
encourage that.

.....the NTIAyesterday (4/27/2004) released a paper which argues
AGAINST relaxing Part 15 (see below). Full NTIA report at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fcc...bpl/index.html


"Critical review of the assumptions underlying these analyses
revealed that application of existing Part 15 compliance
measurement procedures for BPL systems results in a significant
underestimation of peak field strength. Underestimation of the
actual peak field strength is the leading contributor to high
interference risks. As applied in current practice to BPL
systems, Part 15 measurement guidelines do not address unique
physical and electromagnetic characteristics of BPL radiated
emissions. Refining compliance measurement procedures for BPL
systems will not impede implementation of BPL technology because
BPL networks reportedly can be successfully implemented under
existing field strength limits.

"Accordingly, NTIA does NOT recommend that the FCC relax Part 15
field strength limits for BPL systems. Further based on studies
to date, NTIA recommends several "access" BPL compliance
measurement provisions that derive from existing Part 15
measurement guidelines. Among these are requirements to: use
measurement antenna heights near the height of power lines;
measure at a uniform distance of ten (10) meters from the BPL
device and power lines; and measure using a calibrated rod
antenna or a loop antenna in connection with appropriate factors
relating magnetic and electric field strength levels at
frequencies below 30 MHz."

Sunuvagun,

de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote


....the NTIAyesterday (4/27/2004) released a paper which argues
AGAINST relaxing Part 15 (see below). Full NTIA report at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fcc...bpl/index.html


Another excerpt.....


"Assuming that co-frequency BPL devices are deployed at a density
of one per km^2 within a circular area of 10 km radius,
interference to aircraft reception of moderate-to-strong radio
signals is likely to occur below 6 km altitude within 12 km of
the center of the BPL deployment. Interference likely would
occur to aircraft reception of weak-to-moderate radio signals
within 40 km of the center of the BPL deployment area."

Gee, do ya think we oughta deploy this in Terlingua, Texas, Mr.
President?

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

GWB said:

And if you're living out in -- I should -- I was going to
say Crawford, Texas, but it's not -- maybe not nearly as
remote. (Laughter.) How about Terlingua, Texas?

Hey, I've been through Terlingua. It's a ghost town outside the
west gate of Big Bend National Park near the XE border. They're
welcome to BPL!

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:37:23 -0400, Minnie Bannister
wrote:

|Yes, the technical standards need to be changed to allow BPL: require
|all power lines to be shielded.

The ones under ground and under water already are.

The problem will be when every house in your neighborhood is a big
#&%*(*& radiator. Or even worse when your KW wipes out the entire
Internet service in a few square miles.

I'm a rural customer of an electric cooperative. (I happen to use
them for my dialup ISP also)

A couple of years ago when I was having a bout of power line
interference I happened to talk to their VP for new technology,
engineer to engineer.

Among other things he told me that reading meters was a big expense
since their service area is huge, covering good parts of three
counties, one of which is the size of Connecticut. They (we, I'm a
part owner) have 29,000 customers and 2,400 miles of lines.

So they (we) tried a system of reading the meters remotely, using
(very) slow-speed data on the power lines. They couldn't even solve
the technical challenges of doing this and wound up changing out most
of the meters to ones with built in transmitters that can be
interrogated by a guy driving around in a pickup truck.

If they can't read my meter remotely how in the hell are they going to
supply me with high-speed data transmission? BTW, I've strongly
suggested that they don't try.


Tell me about it. Another thing that hasn't been considered is the
condition of these lines. I have been fighting for 5 years here in Alabama
to get the 20/9 noise level (at times past) fixed. Two years of that was
educating the fools what to do about it.

Can you imagine how much trouble its going to be getting BPL through that
noise?

Dan/W4NTI