AT&T: Plug into power sockets for high-speed Net
Last modified: July 14, 2004, 11:55 AM PDT
By Ben Charny
Staff Writer, CNET News.com


AT&T and Pacific Gas and Electric demonstrated Wednesday how broadband
can be sent over power lines, an emerging alternative to cable and DSL
for delivering high-speed Internet access.

As part of the demonstration, at AT&T Labs in Menlo Park, Calif., the
companies created a connection operating at 500 kilobits per second to 3
megabits per second over a power grid. AT&T intends to send voice calls
over that link using voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology,
among other applications, the company said.

Because electricity travels at a lower frequency than Internet signals,
the two can coexist on the same line without interference. Power lines
are also an attractive broadband delivery system because they are
already in place and reach more homes than either cable systems or
telephone lines.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell attended the
demonstration. He has said that broadband over power line (BPL)
technology makes it "theoretically possible to reach every power outlet
in America with a broadband connection." The FCC is under pressure to
substantially increase the number of U.S. homes that have broadband,
which now stands at about 29.2 million.

AT&T and other local phone companies support the technology because it
doesn't rely on the local phone networks owned by regional Bell
operating companies BellSouth, Verizon Communications, Qwest
Communications International and SBC Communications.

Phone competition rules that set cheap rates elapsed last month, so the
Bells are expected to charge more for access. Accordingly, alternative
"last mile" connections into homes, such as BPL or wireless broadband,
are getting more attention, AT&T executives said.

But BPL still has problems. The technology can be unreliable, and it's
still very expensive. These two drawbacks have tempered its use.

Current Communications Group and Cinergy Broadband, a subsidiary of a
Midwestern utility with the same name, in March teamed up for one of the
largest commercial rollouts of BPL. However, there are about two dozen
ongoing trials of the technology throughout the United States, AT&T
said.

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:47:13 GMT, Steven R. Adell - KF2TI quoted CNET:

AT&T and Pacific Gas and Electric demonstrated Wednesday how broadband
can be sent over power lines, an emerging alternative to cable and DSL
for delivering high-speed Internet access.

As part of the demonstration, at AT&T Labs in Menlo Park, Calif., the
companies created a connection operating at 500 kilobits per second to 3
megabits per second over a power grid.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell attended the
demonstration.

Wanna bet that Mister Powell did not deign to stop in to the FCC
Field Office out there to meet or support the staff and that none of
the three interference-chasing engineers assigned to that office
were invited to the demonstration?

Selling BPL is not a technical problem, it's a political problem.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Selling BPL is not a technical problem, it's a political problem.




BULL****!





I think what Phil is saying that BPL has fatal technical
problems, but the politicians can be convinced to allow it
to happen anyway...

welcome to the demise of ham radio in california.

ham op


"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:47:13 GMT, Steven R. Adell - KF2TI quoted CNET:

AT&T and Pacific Gas and Electric demonstrated Wednesday how broadband
can be sent over power lines, an emerging alternative to cable and DSL
for delivering high-speed Internet access.

As part of the demonstration, at AT&T Labs in Menlo Park, Calif., the
companies created a connection operating at 500 kilobits per second to 3
megabits per second over a power grid.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell attended the
demonstration.

Wanna bet that Mister Powell did not deign to stop in to the FCC
Field Office out there to meet or support the staff and that none of
the three interference-chasing engineers assigned to that office
were invited to the demonstration?

Selling BPL is not a technical problem, it's a political problem.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:46:04 GMT, Robert Casey wrote:

Selling BPL is not a technical problem, it's a political problem.

BULL****!
[ Ignore the little man behind the curtain ]

I think what Phil is saying that BPL has fatal technical
problems, but the politicians can be convinced to allow it
to happen anyway...

What I am saying is that the pushers of BPL are not dealing with any
of its technical plusses or minuses, but are dealing wholly within
the political arena.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Great idea, just give up. OR....you 6 landers could fight back.

Dan/W4NTI

"ham op" wrote in message
news:dTrJc.79299$JR4.48419@attbi_s54...
welcome to the demise of ham radio in california.

ham op


"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:47:13 GMT, Steven R. Adell - KF2TI quoted CNET:

AT&T and Pacific Gas and Electric demonstrated Wednesday how broadband
can be sent over power lines, an emerging alternative to cable and DSL
for delivering high-speed Internet access.

As part of the demonstration, at AT&T Labs in Menlo Park, Calif., the
companies created a connection operating at 500 kilobits per second to
3
megabits per second over a power grid.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell attended the
demonstration.

Wanna bet that Mister Powell did not deign to stop in to the FCC
Field Office out there to meet or support the staff and that none of
the three interference-chasing engineers assigned to that office
were invited to the demonstration?

Selling BPL is not a technical problem, it's a political problem.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:46:04 GMT, Robert Casey wrote:

What I am saying is that the pushers of BPL are not dealing with any
of its technical plusses or minuses, but are dealing wholly within
the political arena. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Lots of people and organizations will suffer when BPL takes over the 1.7-80
MHz frequency range in order to help the monopolistic power companies expand
their kingdoms. The amateur radio sections of the HF spectrum will be the
least likely protected sections. The NTIA report on the subject is
cumbersome, but spells out quite well who will suffer when BPL takes over.
All for a few dollars. I wonder if Ralph Nader has taken a look at this
issue? It's big business running our government for their own profit. Should
be one of his issues.

ak

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fcc...s_06042004.doc

The BPL Phase 1 Report (NTIA Report 04-413) is split into two volumes.
Volume I is the main report, and Volume II is comprised of all of the
appendices.


http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fcc...rtWord/VolumeI
I/APPC.DOC

1.7-80 MHz frequency range hosts a number of radio services and supports
well over one-hundred-thousand Federal Government RF systems. Frequencies
in this range are intensively used on the bases of time-and
geographic-sharing by several radio systems. This appendix provides a more
detailed discussion on federal spectrum usage and operations under each
radio service. In addition, this appendix provides a general
characterization of Federal Government RF systems that includes presentation
of representative federal systems and typical system parameters.



http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fcc...rtWord/VolumeI
/EXECSUMMARY.DOC

NTIA summarized technical and operating parameters of over
fifty-nine-thousand (59,000) Federal Government frequency assignments in the
1.7-80 MHz frequency range. This information may help operators of BPL
systems in development of BPL frequency plans. NTIA then defined
representative radio systems for consideration in interference analyses:
(1) a land vehicular receiver; (2) a shipborne receiver; (3) a receiver
using a rooftop antenna (e.g., a base or fixed-service station); and (4) an
aircraft receiver in flight. Federal communications require exceptional
protection on frequencies amounting to about 5.4% of the 1.7-80 MHz
frequency range.

NEEDLESS TO SAY, AMATEUR RADIO WAS NOT LISTED IN THE FREQUENCY MITIGATION
SUGGESTIONS, BUT DID GET MENTIONED ON PAGE C19:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fcc...rtWord/VolumeI
I/APPC.DOC:



http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fcc...rtWord/VolumeI
/SECT9.DOC

In light of the above considerations and the high perceived interference
risks, NTIA recommends that the FCC not relax field strength limits for BPL
systems and that measurement procedures be refined and clarified to better
ensure compliance. These recommendations should be effected as quickly as
possible in order to better protect radio communications. Specifically,
NTIA recommends the following BPL compliance measurement provisions.

"Lloyd" wrote in message
...
Ralph Nader? Sure! A wacko from the far looney left.
The only thing Nader is good for is attracting all the far left loonies
who would vote for Democraps, if Nader was not on the ballot.
The Democraps are pulling every dirty trick there is to keep
Nader off the ballot.

Not that it's any of your business, Lloyd, but I have been a registered
Republican as long as I was qualified to register - and that has been a
long, long time. But when it come to this BPL junk, it's a case of big money
vs. logical technological decisions - and both the Democrats and Republicans
are subject to the big money payoffs. So, either party can take a shot at
fixing our economy and our international problems, but if Nader would take a
position against the power-industry-sponsored PAC bribes and their special
interest BPL agenda - he can have my vote. And I would hope (with an
anti-BPL position) Nader would also receive a lot of other votes from
concerned radio amateurs and communications people who care about the use
and abuse of the radio spectrum we all share. Nader won't win, but if the
votes he gets are enough to swing the election to either of the two major
parties, maybe - just maybe- the concerns of the almost half-million US
radio amateurs won't be ignored by both major parties, and some rational
appointments (technical, not all political) to the FCC Commission will
result. Just a dream, I know. But as long as our political leadership is
determined by who gets the biggest PAC bribes for their re-election, it
really doesn't matter which party has control.

ak

In article 5jeKc.97991$JR4.6118@attbi_s54, "King Zulu"
writes:

But when it come to this BPL junk, it's a case of big money
vs. logical technological decisions - and both the Democrats and Republicans
are subject to the big money payoffs.

But in this specific case, it's the Republicans who are pushing bad technology.


So, either party can take a shot at
fixing our economy and our international problems, but if Nader would take a
position against the power-industry-sponsored PAC bribes and their special
interest BPL agenda - he can have my vote.

Look what happened in 2000.

And I would hope (with an
anti-BPL position) Nader would also receive a lot of other votes from
concerned radio amateurs and communications people who care about the use
and abuse of the radio spectrum we all share. Nader won't win, but if the
votes he gets are enough to swing the election to either of the two major
parties, maybe - just maybe- the concerns of the almost half-million US
radio amateurs won't be ignored by both major parties, and some rational
appointments (technical, not all political) to the FCC Commission will
result. Just a dream, I know.

No, a nightmare.

Back in 2000, Nader got enough votes in Florida to ultimately tip that state to
Bush. Similar goings-on happened in other states. Exit polling of Nader voters
showed that if Ralph hadn't run, half of his voters would have gone to Gore, a
quarter to Bush and the other quarter to even smaller parties or they would
have stayed home. If you look at how many votes Nader got in Florida and
elsewhere, it's clear that if the above percentages had gone to Gore and Bush
we'd have a different team in the White House today.

In effect, by splitting Gore's support, Nader put Bush in the White House.
That's why the Green Party refused to support him this time around.

Remember Ross Perot? He did the same thing for Bill Clinton - twice! By
splitting the support for Papa Bush in 92 and Dole in 96, he allowed Clinton to
be elected with less than a popular majority.

But as long as our political leadership is
determined by who gets the biggest PAC bribes for their re-election, it
really doesn't matter which party has control.

Sounds like a rationale to avoid saying Bush's support of BPL is a bad thing.

The idea that a Nader vote will somehow stop BPL is misguided. I don't know
whether a vote for Kerry will help in the BPL fight, but you can be sure that a
vote for Nader will simply help reelect Bush.

And remember this plain, simple fact:

A vote for Bush is a vote for BPL.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article 5jeKc.97991$JR4.6118@attbi_s54, "King Zulu"
writes:

But when it come to this BPL junk, it's a case of big money
vs. logical technological decisions - and both the Democrats and
Republicans
are subject to the big money payoffs.

But in this specific case, it's the Republicans who are pushing bad
technology.


So, either party can take a shot at
fixing our economy and our international problems, but if Nader would
take a
position against the power-industry-sponsored PAC bribes and their
special
interest BPL agenda - he can have my vote.

Look what happened in 2000.

And I would hope (with an
anti-BPL position) Nader would also receive a lot of other votes from
concerned radio amateurs and communications people who care about the use
and abuse of the radio spectrum we all share. Nader won't win, but if the
votes he gets are enough to swing the election to either of the two major
parties, maybe - just maybe- the concerns of the almost half-million US
radio amateurs won't be ignored by both major parties, and some rational
appointments (technical, not all political) to the FCC Commission will
result. Just a dream, I know.

No, a nightmare.

Back in 2000, Nader got enough votes in Florida to ultimately tip that
state to
Bush. Similar goings-on happened in other states. Exit polling of Nader
voters
showed that if Ralph hadn't run, half of his voters would have gone to
Gore, a
quarter to Bush and the other quarter to even smaller parties or they
would
have stayed home. If you look at how many votes Nader got in Florida and
elsewhere, it's clear that if the above percentages had gone to Gore and
Bush
we'd have a different team in the White House today.

In effect, by splitting Gore's support, Nader put Bush in the White House.
That's why the Green Party refused to support him this time around.

Remember Ross Perot? He did the same thing for Bill Clinton - twice! By
splitting the support for Papa Bush in 92 and Dole in 96, he allowed
Clinton to
be elected with less than a popular majority.

But as long as our political leadership is
determined by who gets the biggest PAC bribes for their re-election, it
really doesn't matter which party has control.

Sounds like a rationale to avoid saying Bush's support of BPL is a bad
thing.

The idea that a Nader vote will somehow stop BPL is misguided. I don't
know
whether a vote for Kerry will help in the BPL fight, but you can be sure
that a
vote for Nader will simply help reelect Bush.

And remember this plain, simple fact:

A vote for Bush is a vote for BPL.

73 de Jim, N2EY


ABB eh Jim? Pathetic.

Vote Nader

Dan/W4NTI