| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
August 17th 05, 01:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
NPR "Morning Addition" article paints BPL as rosy solution for rural broadband.
I heard this on the local NPR radio station this morning. They made
BPL sound rosy. They did mention that the ham radio guys were against it but came up with some "notching" solution that would take care of ham radio guys concerns. You can listen to the stream at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4801446 If would be great if a qualified ham could respond to their article. They usually take listener comment and broadcast those comments the next day or so. |
|
#3
August 17th 05, 06:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
I heard this on the local NPR radio station this morning. They made BPL sound rosy. They did mention that the ham radio guys were against it but came up with some "notching" solution that would take care of ham radio guys concerns. The "notching" solution is simple: Their BPL system does not use frequencies that are also ham bands. Whether it works or not is an open question. You can listen to the stream at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4801446 I did - interesting piece. What they neglect to mention is that: - BPL is a "last mile" delivery method, not a complete system. Still needs a 'head end' - BPL bandwidth is shared between users on the same line, so as your neighbors sign up and use the system, your performance degrades. - There are several BPL technologies out there, not just the one they profiled. - There are other technologies (like Wi-Fi) which can do the same job without all the fuss and bother. - The big danger of BPL is that it turns the whole idea of spectrum protection and allocation upside-down, and sets a bad precedent. I wonder how rosy a solution they would think it was if BPL interfered with FM broadcasting, reducing the utility and availability of that mode of communications? If would be great if a qualified ham could respond to their article. They usually take listener comment and broadcast those comments the next day or so. A qualified ham was part of the article. The rest of us should comment, too. --- One thing the piece proved was that the media, and particularly National Public Radio, are not all a bunch of 'tree-hugging liberals'. BPL is a poster technology for the Bush Administration, who thinks BPL can do no wrong. The best BPL analogies I've seen describe BPL as unnecessary spectrum pollution, and you'd think a bunch of 'tree-hugging liberals' would be against anything that pollutes half as bad as BPL has been shown to do. The article also accepts without question the idea that fast internet access is a necessity for all Americans and their communities - another Bush Administration bit of rightthink. Thanks for posting the link. Anybody besides me and the original poster actually listen to it? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#4
August 18th 05, 12:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ups.com... wrote: I heard this on the local NPR radio station this morning. They made BPL sound rosy. They did mention that the ham radio guys were against it but came up with some "notching" solution that would take care of ham radio guys concerns. The "notching" solution is simple: Their BPL system does not use frequencies that are also ham bands. Whether it works or not is an open question. You can listen to the stream at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4801446 I did - interesting piece. What they neglect to mention is that: - BPL is a "last mile" delivery method, not a complete system. Still needs a 'head end' - BPL bandwidth is shared between users on the same line, so as your neighbors sign up and use the system, your performance degrades. - There are several BPL technologies out there, not just the one they profiled. - There are other technologies (like Wi-Fi) which can do the same job without all the fuss and bother. - The big danger of BPL is that it turns the whole idea of spectrum protection and allocation upside-down, and sets a bad precedent. I wonder how rosy a solution they would think it was if BPL interfered with FM broadcasting, reducing the utility and availability of that mode of communications? If would be great if a qualified ham could respond to their article. They usually take listener comment and broadcast those comments the next day or so. A qualified ham was part of the article. The rest of us should comment, too. --- One thing the piece proved was that the media, and particularly National Public Radio, are not all a bunch of 'tree-hugging liberals'. BPL is a poster technology for the Bush Administration, who thinks BPL can do no wrong. The best BPL analogies I've seen describe BPL as unnecessary spectrum pollution, and you'd think a bunch of 'tree-hugging liberals' would be against anything that pollutes half as bad as BPL has been shown to do. The article also accepts without question the idea that fast internet access is a necessity for all Americans and their communities - another Bush Administration bit of rightthink. Thanks for posting the link. Anybody besides me and the original poster actually listen to it? 73 de Jim, N2EY Hello, Jim Yes, I listened to the link provided. It has possibilities - good possibilities - but we need to see a demonstration that showes little or no interference. Ed Hare demonstrated a *ton* of interference. Yep, they put the blame on amateur radio operators for complaining, but fail to realize that commercial television (channels 2 and 3 in the U.S.) as well as other users fall into the spectrum used by BPL. I think most folks would put up with a *very* small amount of interference, but what Ed Hare turned up was anything but small. The speed sounds interesting, but I'm running between 4 and 7 megabaud currently on DSL  73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
|
#5
August 18th 05, 12:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ups.com... wrote: [snip] The article also accepts without question the idea that fast internet access is a necessity for all Americans and their communities - another Bush Administration bit of rightthink. Actually this would be more of a liberal idea. It surprises me that a Republican administration would buy into this. Thanks for posting the link. Anybody besides me and the original poster actually listen to it? 73 de Jim, N2EY Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
#6
August 18th 05, 01:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim Hampton wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... What they neglect to mention is that: - BPL is a "last mile" delivery method, not a complete system. Still needs a 'head end' - BPL bandwidth is shared between users on the same line, so as your neighbors sign up and use the system, your performance degrades. - There are several BPL technologies out there, not just the one they profiled. - There are other technologies (like Wi-Fi) which can do the same job without all the fuss and bother. - The big danger of BPL is that it turns the whole idea of spectrum protection and allocation upside-down, and sets a bad precedent. I wonder how rosy a solution they would think it was if BPL interfered with FM broadcasting, reducing the utility and availability of that mode of communications? If would be great if a qualified ham could respond to their article. They usually take listener comment and broadcast those comments the next day or so. A qualified ham was part of the article. The rest of us should comment, too. --- One thing the piece proved was that the media, and particularly National Public Radio, are not all a bunch of 'tree-hugging liberals'. BPL is a poster technology for the Bush Administration, who thinks BPL can do no wrong. The best BPL analogies I've seen describe BPL as unnecessary spectrum pollution, and you'd think a bunch of 'tree-hugging liberals' would be against anything that pollutes half as bad as BPL has been shown to do. The article also accepts without question the idea that fast internet access is a necessity for all Americans and their communities - another Bush Administration bit of rightthink. Thanks for posting the link. Anybody besides me and the original poster actually listen to it? 73 de Jim, N2EY Hello, Jim Yes, I listened to the link provided. It has possibilities - good possibilities - but we need to see a demonstration that showes little or no interference. I disagree! Power lines were never meant to carry HF communication signals. They're lossy at HF because they radiate! The whole concept is deeply flawed. By allowing BPL systems, FCC is setting a very bad precedent by saying it's OK to pollute the electro magnetic spectrum with noise, even if there are viable alternatives to the noise-producing technology. All the notching does is to promise that particular system won't pollute the ham bands with noise. Maybe. What about harmonics and other crud? Some might say that FCC cannot ban BPL as such, but that's simply a semantic runaround. All FCC needs to do is to set very low radiated energy standards for BPL and other non-point-source systems, and the problem is solved. But FCC refused to see the difference between, say, a computer monitor that is a point source, and a BPL system that involves miles of wire. Ed Hare demonstrated a *ton* of interference. Ed and others. Carl, WK3C, did some measurements and observations of the Emmaus system as well - to name just one other. Yep, they put the blame on amateur radio operators for complaining, That's like blaming the fishermen for complaining that the sewage plant is killing off the fish because the sewage isn't treated right. but fail to realize that commercial television (channels 2 and 3 in the U.S.) as well as other users fall into the spectrum used by BPL. Heck, the second harmonic of 44-54 MHz falls right in the FM band. I wonder what they'd say if NPR stations were rendered inaudible because of BPL? I think most folks would put up with a *very* small amount of interference, but what Ed Hare turned up was anything but small. Why should licensed radio services have to put up with *any* unnecessary interference? Is there no other way to deliver broadband internet access? The speed sounds interesting, but I'm running between 4 and 7 megabaud currently on DSL And that doesn't drop if your neighbor is doing big downloads. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#7
August 18th 05, 01:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dee Flint" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... wrote: [snip] The article also accepts without question the idea that fast internet access is a necessity for all Americans and their communities - another Bush Administration bit of rightthink. Actually this would be more of a liberal idea. It surprises me that a Republican administration would buy into this. Thanks for posting the link. Anybody besides me and the original poster actually listen to it? 73 de Jim, N2EY Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Hello, Dee Liberal? Pushing for more money for power companies? Please forgive my ignorance, but if I follow the money trail, it leads to big business (monopolies, at that). 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
|
#8
August 18th 05, 01:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... Jim Hampton wrote: wrote in message ups.com... What they neglect to mention is that: - BPL is a "last mile" delivery method, not a complete system. Still needs a 'head end' - BPL bandwidth is shared between users on the same line, so as your neighbors sign up and use the system, your performance degrades. - There are several BPL technologies out there, not just the one they profiled. - There are other technologies (like Wi-Fi) which can do the same job without all the fuss and bother. - The big danger of BPL is that it turns the whole idea of spectrum protection and allocation upside-down, and sets a bad precedent. I wonder how rosy a solution they would think it was if BPL interfered with FM broadcasting, reducing the utility and availability of that mode of communications? If would be great if a qualified ham could respond to their article. They usually take listener comment and broadcast those comments the next day or so. A qualified ham was part of the article. The rest of us should comment, too. --- One thing the piece proved was that the media, and particularly National Public Radio, are not all a bunch of 'tree-hugging liberals'. BPL is a poster technology for the Bush Administration, who thinks BPL can do no wrong. The best BPL analogies I've seen describe BPL as unnecessary spectrum pollution, and you'd think a bunch of 'tree-hugging liberals' would be against anything that pollutes half as bad as BPL has been shown to do. The article also accepts without question the idea that fast internet access is a necessity for all Americans and their communities - another Bush Administration bit of rightthink. Thanks for posting the link. Anybody besides me and the original poster actually listen to it? 73 de Jim, N2EY Hello, Jim Yes, I listened to the link provided. It has possibilities - good possibilities - but we need to see a demonstration that showes little or no interference. I disagree! Power lines were never meant to carry HF communication signals. They're lossy at HF because they radiate! The whole concept is deeply flawed. By allowing BPL systems, FCC is setting a very bad precedent by saying it's OK to pollute the electro magnetic spectrum with noise, even if there are viable alternatives to the noise-producing technology. All the notching does is to promise that particular system won't pollute the ham bands with noise. Maybe. What about harmonics and other crud? Some might say that FCC cannot ban BPL as such, but that's simply a semantic runaround. All FCC needs to do is to set very low radiated energy standards for BPL and other non-point-source systems, and the problem is solved. But FCC refused to see the difference between, say, a computer monitor that is a point source, and a BPL system that involves miles of wire. Ed Hare demonstrated a *ton* of interference. Ed and others. Carl, WK3C, did some measurements and observations of the Emmaus system as well - to name just one other. Yep, they put the blame on amateur radio operators for complaining, That's like blaming the fishermen for complaining that the sewage plant is killing off the fish because the sewage isn't treated right. but fail to realize that commercial television (channels 2 and 3 in the U.S.) as well as other users fall into the spectrum used by BPL. Heck, the second harmonic of 44-54 MHz falls right in the FM band. I wonder what they'd say if NPR stations were rendered inaudible because of BPL? I think most folks would put up with a *very* small amount of interference, but what Ed Hare turned up was anything but small. Why should licensed radio services have to put up with *any* unnecessary interference? Is there no other way to deliver broadband internet access? The speed sounds interesting, but I'm running between 4 and 7 megabaud currently on DSL And that doesn't drop if your neighbor is doing big downloads. 73 de Jim, N2EY Hello, Jim Well, by limited interference, I am suggesting that BPL be limited as any other unintentional radiator. I do hear your point and it is well taken. We do *not* need "only" a 10 dB increase in noise in general LOL Also, as we are well aware, no filter is perfect, whether a notch filter or a bandpass filter or any other filter. Also, filters introduce distortion into the signal. So, it remains to be seen if the power companies can come up with a BPL with very limited impact on licensed services. I do have my doubts, but am only suggesting that *if* they can prove a system can produce very low noise in the airwaves, then it might be worth a try. That is a *big* if. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
|
#9
August 18th 05, 01:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 17 Aug 2005 09:55:16 -0700 wrote:
| The "notching" solution is simple: Their BPL system does not use | frequencies that are also ham bands. Whether it works or not is an open | question. What about MARS and SWL frequencies? | - BPL is a "last mile" delivery method, not a complete system. Still | needs a 'head end' I've seen pictures of these units on primary (12 kV) lines, so by "last mile" this must mean more than just the drop into the home. | - BPL bandwidth is shared between users on the same line, so as your | neighbors sign up and use the system, your performance degrades. On what line? The primary (12 kV) or the secondary (120/240 V)? | - There are other technologies (like Wi-Fi) which can do the same job | without all the fuss and bother. These are on 12cm and 5cm from what I have heard. | - The big danger of BPL is that it turns the whole idea of spectrum | protection and allocation upside-down, and sets a bad precedent. It can also be susceptible to ham transmissions, which will unfairly blame the ham radio operator as the cause of networking failures. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ | | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
#10
August 18th 05, 01:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:28:56 -0400 Dee Flint wrote:
| | wrote in message | ups.com... | wrote: | | [snip] | | The article also accepts without question the idea that | fast internet access is a necessity for all Americans and their | communities - another Bush Administration bit of rightthink. | | | Actually this would be more of a liberal idea. It surprises me that a | Republican administration would buy into this. Bush has many friends who are energy company executives, board members, and investors. He's doing his friends a favor by supporting their bad ideas, even though in the long term, BPL is doomed to flop because it simply cannot keep up with the coming fiber technology, or even match what some DSL and cable/coaxial deployments are already doing. BPL is a _waste_ of power company investment dollars, which will be diverted away from crucially needed infrastructure updates to become capable of handling new energy needs of the future, and to be secure against terrorist attacks. BPL actually puts the nation at more risk than it has now. If power companies want to play "me too" in the information services game, then what they should do is just trump everyone else by rolling out fiber now in the right-of-ways they already have. They could kill the rest of the market by deploying a gigabit fiber infrastructure. Even Verizon's fiber offering wouldn't be close. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ | | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Want Money? Try this Out | CB | |||
| The FAQ (Well, Question 1, at least) | Homebrew | |||
| The FAQ (Well, Question 1, at least) | General | |||
Linear Mode
