|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
BPL: The Better Broadband?
from
John Edwards
on
January 18, 2005
Website:
http://www.telecomdirectnews.com/do.php/110/11377
View comments about this article!
New research from Penn State indicates that BPL may not only be another broadband choice, it may be a better choice.
Full story:
http://www.telecomdirectnews.com/do.php/110/11377
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on January 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"We've run a computer simulation with our new power line model and found that, under ideal conditions, the maximum achievable bit rate was close to a gigabit per second per kilometer on an overhead medium voltage unshielded U.S. electric power-line that has been properly conditioned through impedance matching,"
Ideal Conditions!! Properly Conditioned!
And this will be done by the same people who can't manage to replace broken insulators and arcing components in less than weeks!
Sound like the lab rats need a reality check!
"If you condition those power lines properly, they're an omnipresent national treasure waiting to be tapped for broadband Internet service delivery, especially in rural areas where cable or DSL are unavailable."
Rural Areas!
Have you heard of even ONE test installation in a rural area? BPL promoters are into this for the fast buck which means quick and dirty installation in URBAN areas to maximize their profits!
Dennis / KG4RUL
|
| |
|
BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by K5UJ on January 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The article reads like a PR story from the BPL industry. All the fantastic claims are predictions hedged with qualifiers. The news is that some engineers at a college have come up with new computer modelling. So what. The stuff still radiates, and why this is this being presented here? I smell a troll.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on January 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If you condition those power lines properly"
And if you use really good drugs, pigs can fly, too...
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by AK4P on January 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The preceding article was written by John Edwards, a freelance technology writer based in Gilbert, Arizona. He can be reached by phone at +1-480-854-0011."
Wait a minute! Isn't Gilbert, AZ near one of the BPL field trial sites that is being asked to shut down due to interference?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on January 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ha! What a laugh. The Penn State guys must of gotten pumped full of blue sky by someone from BPL the industry.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by VE3IOS on January 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We have wireless internet access out here in the sticks. We do not need any BPL here either thank you.
Jeff
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"We've run a computer simulation with our new power line model and found that, under ideal conditions, the maximum achievable bit rate was close to a gigabit per second per kilometer on an overhead medium voltage unshielded U.S. electric power-line that has been properly conditioned through impedance matching,"
Uh.. ok Sounds to me like it works well in the lab under ideal conditions.
Then again, DSL or Cable would probobly do much a much better job under certain controlled conditions too.
Now how about telling the general public all the actual costs involved with all this minor pesky line conditioning and the man hours involved with "impedance matching" every overhead line across the entire nation to implement this tecnology in the name of outperforming DSL and Cable speeds by such a marginal percentage point.
I guess the computer simulation study made for a nice high school science fair project.
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by N5LB on January 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Marketing and PR BS. It smells. Will this Penn State guy publish his perfect world findings? What happens if you "impedance match" and launch a 1Ghz signal down a powerline? Anyone ever seen even a "perfect world" relationship between frequency and impedance for a "perfect world" MV powerline?
Its going to be fun to watch these guys crash and burn, especially the sucker investors.
|
| |
|
BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by N4ZOU on January 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wonder how well it will operate around my 10-meter beacon? It's going 24/7 right now. The antenna is located close the power line right of way on my property for obvious reasons. Build your own 10-meter beacon. Here's how.
http://www.4sqrp.com/resource/10m_beacon/10m_beacon.htm
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have run a similar computer model which involved downloading the entire internet onto CD rom disks.
Under these controlled laboratory conditions it in fact outperformed any broadband connection offered by any ISP today by a factor of 12X.
Amazing isn't it?
A similar pseudoscience computer model study is currently underway to determine if broadband internet can be sent to the voyager space probe using radio waves on 2.4 Ghz. under the same similated lab conditions.
I will keep you posted.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by N2NZJ on January 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
JUST SHUT ALL THE BPL TRIAL SITES DOWN.its a failed technology. (IDEAL LAB. CONDITIONS?????.) sounds familiar. under actual real conditions FAILURE.the best thing is to let all the latest TECH. to succeed and kill B P L. MY DSL WKS GREAT.I don't need BPL or any other failed TECH. to replace IT. so we should keep up the pressure to SQUASH THIS FAILED LOW TECH. SYSTEM. enough said. 73 TOM
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by KT0DD on January 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
We need a letter writing campaign to the science / engineering dept. at Penn State with copies going to the Dean there as well. Everyone get your pens & paper out! Let them know what an idiotic thing this is! 73.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by KY1V on January 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BPL = Beatniks Promoting Lies
BPL = Boneheaded Power Lobbyists
BPL = Basic Premise is a Lie
BPL = Bad Proposal Losers
BPL = Bullcrap Promised Land
Help me out here...
I am sure this enthusiastic eHam crowd can do better...
David ~ KY1V
|
| |
|
BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by KE3HO on January 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"We've run a computer simulation with our new power line model and found that, under ideal conditions, the maximum achievable bit rate was close to a gigabit per second per kilometer on an overhead medium voltage unshielded U.S. electric power-line that has been properly conditioned through impedance matching,"
Sounds to me like their "new power line model" isn't worth much (except for giving wrong answers). I am sure that I could come up with an even newer power line model that would show that even higher bit rates can be achieved. But what would that prove, except that I can come up with an even worse model than theirs? On the other hand, one can look at reality where tests are run on ACTUAL POWER LINES (gee, real world data? Why use real data when you can model it in the lab) and see that the BPL equipment struggles to manage much lower bit rates than they predict. What a joke.
|
| |
|
BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by WI7B on January 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hmmm. A gigabyte/sec/kilometer. With the Penn State model using unshielded wiring, that should just about do in most radio telecommunication. Unless they've also modelled for notch filtering the entire useable radio spectrum.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on January 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BPL? (B)ig (P)athetic (L)oser.
Any questions?
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by N2NZJ on January 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
BPL= BUSH POWELL LOBBY.for BIG POWER COMPANIES INC.and the like. they are trying to sell INVESTORS THE BIGGEST LEMON IN MODERN HISTORY. P.T. BARNUM used to QUOTE theres a SUCKER BORN EVERY MINUTE.we all know how true that is to this day. so on and on it GOES. BURY the POWER LOBBIES before its too late. those who will be suckered in to invest MILLIONS ON A LOSER. they will be MAD AS H*** when that investment FAILS. big example ENRON. AND OTHER CORPORATE SCAMS.to many to list. BPL THE BETTER BROADBAND "NOPE". 73 TOM
|
| |
|
BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by K9FE on January 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
jedwards@john-edwards.com is his address and I would make him know that he is telling half truths and stealing money from someone writing that trash.
Mike K9FE
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by AE1X on January 19, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Instead of emotional attacks, lets look at the reality. The authors of this study indicate that ideal conditions must exist to permit the stated data rate. It does not answer the real technical question, how is this to be achieved?
What bandwidth would the ideal system consume? Are they considering use of all spectrum from DC to 1GHz? To support this data ratem all available bandwidth will be required and this does not account for those frequencies place off limits nor does it take into account that mitigation will reduce bandwidth.
It's interesting, the BPL proponents are getting a free ride here. Their potential competition, outside of cable, DSL, and fiber, will have to share spectrum with other services and potentially have to purchase spectrum at auction. Nice deal for the utilities isn't it?
BPL is a poor choice for broadband. The ultimate cost will be higher for the stated bandwidth than any of the competition. Unfortunately, no one is listening about cost because it will be amortized into the charge and the rate payers will foot the bill not the utility. You can say the same thing of the competition, but they will not have to shoulder the requirement of maintenance to keep the signals flowing nor the cost of mitigation.
Ken
|
| |
|
BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by WA2DYA on January 19, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You can rig a laboratory experiment to prove almost anything your customer has asked you to prove. I know;
I've done it!
--- CHAS WA2DYA
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by AE1X on January 19, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree, I've seen it done and observed the fall out when it came back to haunt the individuals making the claims.
Ken
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by VE7NGR on January 19, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"the maximum achievable bit rate was close to a gigabit per second per kilometer"
Just what is a gigabit per second per kilometre? This means that a longer cable can support a higher date rate. I don't think so!
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by N2NZJ on January 19, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
CONTROLED LABRATORY CONDITIONS. are not actual every day conditions Iam sure we all know that fact. SO WHO ARE THESE WIZ KIDS TRYING TO KID. a bunch of AIRHEAD INVESTORS who listen to this IDEAL CONDITION LAB SET UP AS BEING GOSPEL. and then being asked to INVEST SOME ODD MILLIONS TO SOME POWER COMPANIES BPL INVESTMENT COFFERS. this is what it sounds LIKE.so I hope these guys CAN SEE THAT ANOTHER CORPORATE SCAM IS ABOUT TO POSSIBLY EMERGE. investor's BEWARE. 73
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by KC4VFP on January 19, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
++++++++++++++++++++
ALWAYS ASK ONE QUESTION:
WHO STANDS TO PROFIT?
DID THE PENN PEOPLE RECEIVE MONEY FOR THIS "STUDY," AND FROM WHO???????
(maybe they can find weapons of mass destruction, too.)
++++++++++++++++++++
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by KC4VFP on January 19, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is what a REAL-WORLD power grid looks like,
and why BPL field throughput will NEVER meet models:
http://www.FPL-FRAUD.COM
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
+
|
| |
|
BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by WX0B on January 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gentlemen,
The professor/ researcher who wrote the BPL article can be contacted here: Please be concise and non-threatening with any comments. He is a good guy but he got it wrong.
BTW he merely used NEC to model the AC mains. Not a good program to use for this kind of modelling since NEC treats transmissin lines as IDEAL Lossless lines.
Name: MOHSEN KAVEHRAD
E-mail: mxk40@psu.edu
Mail ID: mxk40@psu.edu
mkavehrad@psu.edu
Address: 0229 ELEC ENGR EAST
UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 16802
Telephone Number: +1 814 865 7179
Title: PROFESSOR ELECT. ENGR.
Administrative Area: ENGINEERING
Department: ELECTRICAL ENGR
Campus: UNIVERSITY PARK
|
| |
|
BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by WX0B on January 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is a message I sent to the professor. I will post any comments from him. If I get his report I will post it on my website so we all can review it.
Dear Professor MOHSEN KAVEHRAD,
I just read a report on some research that was performed by you evidently at the Penn State. See it here
http://www.telecomdirectnews.com/do.php/110/11377
Even though I have not read your actual research report, I find it totally amazing that you would derive that under ideal conditions an AC power line could be used for broadband internet to 1 GHz. Professors are held up to the highest standards and I feel that you have failed the acedemic community. Perhaps I will change my mind if you would hopefully send me this research you performed so I may see for myself.
As a owner of a company that is very heavily involved in HF and VHF radio communications with customers like NSA, Air Force, Navy SPAWAR, Army, Coast Gaurd, FAA, State Dept, etc. I can assure you that BPL is not and will never be compatable with radio communications. Many reports and serious investigations have been already made that prove this, and to date NO BPL experimental license test has been successful. There is an agenda ( I am sure you have been told) to promote it from very high in our own government. It is a political hot potato and one that you should realize that you may have been made a pawn and partial too. I feel sorry for this since I am a BSEE and have great respect for people in your position.
Please send me the report, and also please try to learn the truth about BPL. Here is a good place to start.
http://www.arraysolutions.com/images/R%20Dean%20Straw%20Reply%20Comments%2004-37.pdf
In highest respect to you I remain,
Jay Terleski
Array Solutions
972 203 2008
Military Communications Systems, Phased Arrays, RF Switches, Antennas & Towers
http://www.arraysolutions.com
|
| |
|
BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by WX0B on January 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was sent the paper from the professor.
You can read it here on my website
http://www.arraysolutions.com/bpl_paper.htm
|
| |
|
BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by KB2HSH on January 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N4ZOU:
I have $1 garage sale CBs and homebrew coathanger beams madeup IF BPL ever comes to FN03. Sure, a beacon is great...how about a crappy and poorly manufactured CB on a beam pointing directly at the powerlines?
I smell HAVOC.
***BTW: As far as Michael Powell's resignation....since we're all discussing BPL, and the rest of the BS he has caused or let happen under his watch...I hear Wal-Mart is hiring. They hire PLENTY of no-talent assholes. He's PERFECT!!!
John
KB2HSH
PS: Sorry for the profanity, gentlemen.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by KC4VFP on January 27, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Having read this paper, I would like to point out a few fallacies:
This theorem reeks of what was commonly referred to as "g" line transmission. To achieve a 100 MHz bandwidth over a 1 km span, the center frequency of such transmissions must be raised to avoid differential phase and differential gain problems. In doing so, one must then take into account and isolate all reactive components found in a real-world scenario. This includes laterals, which are the main delivery medium for this type of transmission, and all associated passive components, such as capacitor banks, used to correct power factor, or shunt transients from motor-starting circuits, load switching, et.
Component-induced noise such as defective LA's, insulators, and transformers with internal arcing, together with the previously mentioned reactive components and laterals, which will also produce standing waves at various frequencies, contribute to "Fuzzy Logic," the inability to properly decode the data stream, and soft decision errors (bit-error rate) increases dramatically. Perhaps brute-force BPL power levels of +40 dbm might reduce bit error rates slightly, but as soon as Mother Nature puts a half-inc of radial ice on the power lines, all that careful reactive nulling disappears.
"Even the devil can cite scripture" should be the real title of this paper.
-30-
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: The Better Broadband?
|
|
|
by KC4VFP on January 27, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I see this as nothing less than an attempt by the power industry to have someone else pay for the clean-up of defective utility equipment, the kind that can be heard as 20 over S9 noise on many Short Wave receivers.
After this "BPL Prepping" is done, I can see BPL being declared "unfeasible."
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
UK Regulator's Study Points Up Limitations of Amperion-Equipped BPL Trial:
House Resolution 230 'A Fair Request,' ARRL President Says:
Sweden Bans Polluting PLT Equipment:
EchoLink and Emergency Communications
Grab and Go Emergency Communication Station
Other News Articles
Wireless Warriors: Group Enjoys Ham Radio as Hobby, Public Service:
So Much More Than a Hobby: Ham Radio Essential for Emergency Communication:
Cam Hartford, N6GA, Named CQ Magazine QRP Editor:
ARRL Seeks Input for New IARU Region 2 Band Plan:
W1AW 2010 Spring/Summer Operating Schedule:
|
|
|
