|
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
|
Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
from
commsdesign.com
on
September 13, 2005
View comments about this article!
Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
See the full story here:
LINK
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by K3AN on September 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is nothing a dwindling number of radio enthusiasts can do to stop this. Given their healthy cash flows, the electric utilities can gain market share by practically giving away BPL service for a long time. Our only hope is that they demonstrate incompetence in maintaining near-100% availability of the system, and thus drive their customers away. Remember, they're used to a monopoly status in electricity delivery, and aren't used to operating in a market such as internet access, where customers have choices.
Otherwise, it's "Game Over" for HF amateur radio.
|
| |
|
Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by N0XMZ on September 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think money is our best friend here, once the investors realize what a waste of money it truely is. Google has money to burn so I wouldn't sweat their $200 mil. "investment".
The article itself cites a few examples of the waste:
"...in the meantime, the utilities and equipment vendors will find their business model falls apart because of the inability to quantify some of the back-end equipment costs."
That's because it takes a repeater every thousand feet (or so) to keep the signal above the noise floor.
"Some broadband service providers talked of outdoor Wi-Fi equipment that would be used at each transformer location, a strategy Seybold called a "recipe for disaster."
Why not just use the Wi-Fi technology to serve a neighborhood and feed the nodes with something more reliable, like fiber or coax? I bet a mile of fiber would cost less than the repeaters and associated equipment needed to utilize the power lines.
"Business models for BPL must assume that each layer of service provision has a guaranteed profit model, that equipment can be put in place without debt-leveraged buildout and that monthly services can compete with the $14.95 monthly DSL charges recently offered by Verizon and SBC Communications. Even if interference problems at ham and public-safety bands truly are solved, Seybold said, BPL advocates have not demonstrated viable business models that meet those criteria."
Exaclty. I think the hoopla surrpounding BPL is more about romantic pipe-dreams than reality. Similar to the idea of extracting hydrogen from water to power cars or "growing fuel" (corn) to make ethanol. Nice ideas, yes. But when faced with the costs of implementation, they just don't hold up.
And yet, no one ever talks about SATELLITE BROADBAND. I wonder why? If I lived in the-middle-of-nowhere, satellite would be my first choice.
But.... a sucker is born every day. I say we just give it time. Let the investors throw away their money and the salesmen behind BPL will find some new snake oil to sell 'em.
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by AA4PB on September 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't know about problems with system availability. The power company around this area has a very high percentage of "up" time (for power delivery). It is at least as good as the phone company and certainly better than the cable TV service.
As the article points out (near the end) there are those in the industry who don't think that the BPL business model has taken accurate account of the cost of installing and maintaining a BPL system. The FCC seems to think that BPL will suddenly be available anywhere there is power. I seriously doubt it considering all the backbone, repeaters, and transformer bypasses that would need to be installed to do that. BPL, if successful at all, will likely serve only the same high population density areas that are presently served by cable and DSL. In the long run, BPL will probably die on its own even without hams complaining about interferrence. It won't take the investers very long to figure out that they have been "dooped".
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on September 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I do not understand all the fuss.
ARRL has determined that BPL is a "flawed technology" that is "not needed" and "won't work". As such, it is doomed to fail of its own infirmities.
Surely you do not think that IBM, Motorola, San Diego Power, & Google know more then Ed Hare and ARRL, now do you? So fear not, fellow hams, take comfort that technology giants like IBM, Motorola, San Diego Power and Google are all stupid, and that ARRL knows all.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by K4PDM on September 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's not a very positive article for BPL if you take time to read it.
I am continually amazed at the large number of hams who publically predict the demise of our hobby and openly express contempt for the ham organizations that are putting up a defense for our spectrum.
If ham radio ever dies, it'll be a cancer from inside that kills it.
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by N0XMZ on September 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4PDM said "If ham radio ever dies, it'll be a cancer from inside that kills it."
How true.
I think companies like IBM, Motorola, San Diego Power, & Google just wish we would go away (not to mention the neighbors). It seems to me that they think if they can get this BPL ball rolling, then the FCC would essentially say "to hell with the grumpy old hams" (and the SWL crowd as well). And the few cops on low-band VHF - who cares? They can move to 460 or 800 MHz like the rest.
Only Motorola seems to have a solution that allows BPL to coexist with HF radio (using low-voltage lines). Even still, I don't understand why we "need" BPL in the first place. DSL, cable, Wi-fi, satellite.... how many more choices do you want?
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by K5XS on September 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I am continually amazed at the large number of hams who publically predict the demise of our hobby and openly express contempt for the ham organizations that are putting up a defense for our spectrum. If ham radio ever dies, it'll be a cancer from inside that kills it."
K4PDM: You said it EXACTLY right.
W9WHE: Why the sarcasm? Why the slam at the ARRL? And why your "ARRL boycott"? Can you propose (or better still, implement) a better organization to represent us? If you can (and do), sign me up!
I'm for whatever will preserve the spirit and value to the public of amateur radio. If you don't care for the ARRL--and clearly you don't--that's fine. You've cancelled your membership, and that's your right. But kindly offer a practical alternative before you publicly tear at the only body we have to represent us.
I'm not an ARRL apologist, but I'm a member and will remain so until something better comes along. Without it, we have zero influence on domestic or international spectrum allocation and authorization processes, and very little influence on FCC policy and rule-making processes. We need to be heard in both areas, and the ARRL gives us voice in both. They do it imperfectly, but infinitely better than anything else I can see.
(Or maybe we should all join K1MAN's "AARA"?)
73 to all,
DE K5XS
|
| |
|
Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by W7ND on September 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yup. There is an extreme pessimism among some of us that say the end of HF ham radio is inevitable, and soon, due to BPL. Having that in mind, please be advised I will buy all of your HF ham radio equipment for 10 cents on the dollar. If I were you, I'd sell now, before it is not worth anything when ham radio ceases to exist. So if you have an IC-7800 laying around, let me know. I'll wire you $1000 for it.
That crooked former Vice-President, Spiro Agnew, said it best;
"Nattering Nabobs of Negativism"
Regards,
W7ND
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by W6EM on September 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE-No.2, Jonathan, says:
"Surely you do not think that IBM, Motorola, San Diego Power, & Google know more then Ed Hare and ARRL, now do you? So fear not, fellow hams, take comfort that technology giants like IBM, Motorola, San Diego Power and Google are all stupid, and that ARRL knows all."
More funnies, I guess. Since when, Jonathan, is San Diego Gas and Electric a TECHNOLOGY GIANT? Hmmmm.
Let's see, they are a San Diego county-wide power generation, transmission and distribution utility. Much smaller than the likes of Edison International or Pacific Gas and Electric. Ah, maybe it really isn't just size, but location. The only giant I know of around San Diego is Qualcomm. I spent 19 years with one of the real giants (not the baseball team)in San Francisco. Shouldn't be too hard for you to figure out.
ABPL will cause electric utilities that deploy it lots of headaches. The only thing giant about BPL will be those headaches......
Hey, now here's an idea. Since I heard Google wants to get into the internet auction business, maybe eBay will want to invest in BPL to keep things even. That way, when BPL dies, they can compete with Google for the listings to sell the equipment......
How's the rest of your trolling been lately?
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by K4RAF on September 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If ham radio ever dies, it'll be a cancer from inside that kills it."
If ham radio actually lives, it won't be from supporting the leeches aka the ARRL.
Ham radio is on life support in so many ways, it is hard to have an optomistic view regading the "future".
Maybe it is time to form Part-15.org?
|
| |
|
Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by K2JVI on September 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I will concur on the article not painting a rosy picture for BPL if one takes time to read it. Especially the part discussing the I.E.E.E. and how their actions may throw a "monkey wrench" in the standards process. Keep in mind,the longer it takes BPL to become standardized, other rapidly advancing technologies will have opportunities to evolve,become less expensive,and penetrate markets first. Marketplaces are quite Darwinian when you examine them.
My other observation is this. As we all know, hams communicate all over the world for free. The telecomms and the FCC don't like that too well. These groups would love nothing more than to take all of our privledges away and rely on all of the communication companies and end all free communication. I hope this never happens because this could open several nasty "cans of worms".
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on September 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K5XS writes:
"Why the sarcasm?"
I am frustrated with ARRL's soviet-style propiganda. On one hand, they say send us money to defeat BPL, but on the other they say BPL is a flawed technology that is not needed and that won't work.
"Why the slam at the ARRL And why your "ARRL boycott?"
I am tired of ARRL's continual destruction of our hobby. The majority of hams are dead set against "dumbing down of our hobby, yet ARRL continues to propose license changes that bring us ever closer to CB. Moreover, ARRL's impotence on key issues, Antenna Bill, BPL, spectrum defense, 220 Mhz, means your money does little more then fund sallaries and retirement accounts for the Newington Boys Club.
Ever try to get a straight answer from an ARRL director on how he voted on the "dumbing down" proposal? Good luck I have watched hams ask questions, only to be dodged and ignored by ARRL directors. WHY?
There is a reason that roughly 80% of hams REFUSE to be members. Think its the $35?. Think again. While ARRL is constantly seeking to fill its coffers with your money, its list of FAILURES is long and its list of meaningful acomplishments astonishingly short.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by K5XS on September 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE: Thanks for the thoughtful response.
"I am frustrated with ARRL's soviet-style propiganda. On one hand, they say send us money to defeat BPL, but on the other they say BPL is a flawed technology that is not needed and that won't work."
I guess I don't see a dichotomy (or Soviet propaganda)here. My sense is that the ARRL is doing its best to paint an accurate picture of BPL's shortcomings ("...flawed technology..."), all the while fighting it on every legislative and administrative front it can. I believe them when they say that takes money. I've spent a good bit of time in DC, and I've watched what it takes to shape policy, and money is surely one of the requirements.
"I am tired of ARRL's continual destruction of our hobby. The majority of hams are dead set against 'dumbing down' of our hobby, yet ARRL continues to propose license changes that bring us ever closer to CB. Moreover, ARRL's impotence on key issues, Antenna Bill, BPL, spectrum defense, 220 Mhz, means your money does little more then fund sallaries and retirement accounts for the Newington Boys Club."
Well, I'm not at all inclined to think the ARRL is set on, working toward, or causing a "continual destruction of our hobby." I think one of the interesting things about the ARRL is that their future is tied to amateur radio. If they want to stay in business, amateur radio has to stay in business. So unless ARRL officers and directors are completely looney, they would want what's good for the hobby to keep their positions. If they really work toward the Amateur Service's destruction, they are working toward their own as well.
And I agree that the "dumbing down" is unfortunate, but I'm not smart enough to think of what I would do differently. It would have been great if we could have kept the rigorous technical (and Morse Code) standards you and I went through to get licensed. I believe, though, that with that approach the population of amateurs would have dwindled so quickly that there would be no political clout and no service left to defend. And while I agree that the ARRL hasn't moved some mountains in the directions I would have liked (and you did a good job of listing them: antenna bill, BPL, Spectrum Defense, 220MHz), I disagree with your conclusion that the ARRL is therefore "impotent" or that the resources we provide do no more than fund salaries and retirement accounts. Having witnessed spectrum processes at work, I can tell you the ARRL does have clout and does influence things in a positive way for the Amateur Service. There was a real chance of losing the entire 220MHz band, BPL has ENORMOUS resources behind it, and spectrum defense is controversial. The fact that the ARRL has had even minimal success on any of these issues is to me a positive reflection of what they are doing. Could someone do it better? Maybe. Is it an expensive organization? To amateurs, I think so. But compared to the giants of industry and their huge coffers, I think the ARRL actually operates pretty efficiently. As for the "Newington Boys Club," I can't argue one way or the other. I saw a list of salaries once, and they didn't seem out of line to me. I suspect the organization--like any--could be run more efficiently, but I'm not smart enough to know where exactly I would cut to make it so. I suppose if the issue bothered me more I would get more involved in ARRL leadership, but I just don't have the time.
"Ever try to get a straight answer from an ARRL director on how he voted on the 'dumbing down' proposal? Good luck I have watched hams ask questions, only to be dodged and ignored by ARRL directors. WHY?"
I've never had the experience, and I don't know. I _do_ know that I have asked questions of volunteer and paid ARRL officers on occasion over my 37+ years in the hobby, and the answers have ranged from pretty poor to very good. That is what I would expect from a group that includes volunteers and professionals in its ranks. As to the "dumbing down" issue, I suspect those that favor that movement would label it differently ("easing entry barriers" maybe?) and would see it as a way to preserve the hobby by building our numbers. CB is a mess, and has been for many years. I think we are a long way from that cesspool, and I think we all need to work hard to mentor new licensses into good operators. But I think closing the gates by retaining high entry standards isn't a viable approach. Western society today is an "I want it now" culture. We could surely stay an island of "If you want it, earn it like we did." But I'm afraid if we did that, we'd be down in numbers of active operators even more than we already are, and--again--the service would cease to exist.
"There is a reason that roughly 80% of hams REFUSE to be members. Think its the $35?. Think again. While ARRL is constantly seeking to fill its coffers with your money, its list of FAILURES is long and its list of meaningful acomplishments astonishingly short."
Well, I guess we see things differently. There were many years as a college student and as a young father that I didn't join because I needed that money elsewhere. I wasn't "refusing" to join; I just didn't join. I suspect many of the 80% are in similar situations. And I suspect many just aren't "joiners," and that's fine. As long as the ARRL or some group has enough resources to represent us, the percentage doesn't matter a whole lot. If you or someone else could either transform the ARRL into, or construct a new organization, that was so attractive in how it worked, what it cost, and what it did that 100% of the amateurs joined, that would be terrific! But I suspect that's harder than it may seem.
Through all this, I think we need SOMEbody in Washington. The ARRL is in my view the only viable body that can represent us today. As I mentioned in my earlier post to you, I will gladly at any time consider an alternative if one stands up. I will tell you from personal experience that the ARRL is known on The Hill, at the FCC, and in the spectrum bureaucracies. If we were to all boycott the ARRL, it would cease to exist, those who covet our spectrum would rejoice, and the Amateur Service would assuredly die.
I'm not saying the ARRL needs to continue to be, but I am saying we need in place an effective body to represent us. Without the ARRL, we'd need something to take its place, and I just don't see that happening. If you or your friends want to stand one up, give it a shot.
And I'll add that I don't think it's constructive or productive to the Amateur Service to propose destroying the ARRL without either working hard to improve it or to replace it with another institution that can represent us.
Thanks for keeping the discussion civil.
73,
Bernie K5XS
|
| |
|
Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by K1CJS on September 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The article itself starts out by saying there are companies that are going ahead with BPL, but then it goes on to say the concerns of radio amateurs are not being addressed with sufficient throughness to insure the success of the current BPL systems.
I agree with K4PDM and K5XS--this article doesn't exactly say BPL is coming and it is good, it also points out some of the flaws with the 'technology' with a finger pointed straight at us (hams) for bringing these concerns out into the open. We are being listened to!
It seems for once that the article writer has gotten both sides of the story and has given both sides equal consideration.
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on September 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K5XS writes:
"And I'll add that I don't think it's constructive or productive to the Amateur Service to propose destroying the ARRL without either working hard to improve it or to replace it with another institution that can represent us"
Changing ARRL is essentially impossible. The people that "really" run ARRL are not elected and not accountable. Thus, there is no effective way to institute meaningful change. That's why so many have just given up. That's one reason why the 80% or so refuse to join...their voices, wishes and desires just do not matter. But for the fact that membership is tied to a subscription of QST, I think membership would be down around 10%.
I think ARRL recognizes this. That is why they have all but given up on increasing membership from the existing pool of hams. Their only hope to increase $$$$ is to look to new hams that don't yet realize the true landscape. Hence, dumb down the hobby, bring in new "suckers" that will buy overpriced publications, make donations and pay membership dues.
If you want to get ARRL's attention, you have to speak their primary language, money. Hence, we started the boycott and called on members to cancel their membership.
|
| |
|
Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by K0ZN on September 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The comment that Ham Radio is more likely to die from "a cancer within" is quite true.... and the ARRL is FERTILIZING the cancer cells with its continuous push for lower and easier licensing requirements.
This statement has NOTHING to do with "CW"... it is because the easier it is go obtain something the less it is worth. i.e. People won't throw away a gold Rolex watch because it took a lot of work and effort to earn the money to buy it...but they will throw away a paper plate or meaningless piece of paper (a future Ham license??!!) because they can easily replace it.
There are a lot more reasons to justify the use of radio frequency spectrum by an organized and disciplined smaller group of users than by some chaotic circus of thousands.... There is a lot more to Amateur Radio than how many bands we have.
After 40 years of ARRL membership, it became painfully apparent to me that the ARRL was as much a part of the problem as it was the solution. (...and I discontinued my membership.)
BOTTOMLINE: the ARRL wants to (as best it can) GOVERN Amateur Radio....not REPRESENT hams....
How often to you see opposing or disagreeing commentary or opinion published PROMINENTLY in QST??
(Answer: "Never".) I made the effor to write and disagree or point out the fallacy of ARRL's positions several times and the reply I received was condescending to varying degrees. Respect for the "peasants" in the field is not a quality you will see much of at the ARRL. Their attitude is pretty much similiar to Big Government: "We know what is best for you...and we will take you (force you!) in that direction."
73, K0ZN
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by K5XS on September 18, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE & K0ZN,
Okay, we get it. You both think the ARRL is beyond reform, impotent, and contrary to the best interests of the Amateur Service.
What do you propose as a solution?
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on September 19, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Stop feeding the bulley that is destroying things that matter to you. Stand up to and expose the bulley and not let it trample everyone and everything. The bulley will either reform or go away.
Is that so hard?
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by K5XS on September 19, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, I'm not so sure that's it's "hard," so much as I don't think it leaves us anywhere.
You all have suggested that the ARRL is beyond reform, so I'd have to conclude by your thinking that the bully won't reform, and that it will have to "go away." And if the "bully" goes away, what mechanism represents amateur interests in DC? Who advocates for amateur spectrum? Whom does the FCC staff call for views on amateur issues?
I'm honestly not trying to be smart here, but I seriously don't understand what those who call for the ARRL's demise propose as a follow-on organization that is in any way better. And we need SOME organization to represent us.
I'm willing to listen, but I've not yet heard a single proposal of what you all would replace it with. That leads me to believe you all want the ARRL to die, and that you would then leave the amateur community with nobody to represent us. In my view, that's a sure formula for extinction.
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by W1RFI on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE-II preaches:
> Surely you do not think that IBM, Motorola, San Diego
> Power, & Google know more then Ed Hare and ARRL, now
> do you? So fear not, fellow hams, take comfort that
> technology giants like IBM, Motorola, San Diego
> Power and Google are all stupid, and that ARRL knows
> all.
The FCC rules permit BPL to operate at a radiated field strength of 30 uV/m, 30 meters from the source. If you put a typical ham antenna (ie, 80-meter dipole or 20-meter Yagi) into a 30 uV/m field, the received signal level will be S9+. BPL operates continously across tens of MHz of spectrum, continuously with time and the plan of the BPL "giants" is to build it as big as an entire state. Yes, I and ARRL know more than those in that industry that claim that continously filling a few of our ham bands with noise will not cause harmful interference. A few of these folks you are preaching in support of have said really stupid things like "BPL will be inaudible." Other than your need to bash ARRL, how can you justify supporting that sort of statement?
And the examples you give are the wrong ones. Last fall, Motorola contacted ARRL, telling us that they intended to design a BPL system, but that they wanted to do it in a way that would not cause harmful interference to amateur radio. We provided them with our input about what system parameters would be important to consider and they used that input to design a product that operates well below FCC in the ham bands. (Clearly, they had a bit more faith in ARRL than you are trying to represent.)
This is pure physics, WHE-II, and if you can explain how "Ed Hare and ARRL" don't know more than those who claim that legal BPL signals will be inaudible, I would love to hear your summation.
Motorola's product uses the same DSP filtering that other BPL systems use, with additional hardware filtering to deepen the notches. In the ham bands, their signals are lower than the ambient noise level at typical amateur antennas. This works.
Google is a technological giant in the information and data-mining arena, but they have never professed to know RF. Even so, they invested in a company, Current Technologies, that also doesn't use the Amateur bands in its product. Unlike Motorola, they don't add hardware filters, so there will inevitably be some interference to fixed stations with a low noise floor, but they, too, are on the right track.
The use of HomePlug modems for BPL will be a step in the right direction. So would the use of the DS-2 modems, if the manufacturers and operators would actually avoid the ham bands altogether. Unfortunately, they don't.
About 8 years ago, if memory serves, ARRL worked with HomePlug to help them determine that they needed to notch the ham bands in their industry specification. Similar work was done with the Home Phone Networking Alliance, the VDSL committees and the cable industry. Just as a few examples:
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/HomePlug/HomePlug_ARRL.pdf
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/HPNA/HPNAtests.html
http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/vdsl/vdsl-tia.htm
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/catvi/index.html
ARRL has prepared a number of papers and presentations about BPL. I am still at home, so I will have to double check the URLs at the office, so I will do a followup post as soon as I get there.
I would think that these were generally heads and shoulders above the far-more generalized claims of the BPL "giants" that their systems would not cause any interference, or that they would be completely inaudible, or that their lawyers say that it isn't really interference after all. These are the people you are supporting in your zest to bash ARRL, WHE-II.
ARRL staff are generally seen as able and helpful to industry. We serve on a number of industry committees, often in leadership positions. I chair ANSI ASC C63's subcommittee on Immunity and its ad hoc BPL study group. I serve the IEEE EMC Society Standards Development Committee as chair of its BPL study project. These leadership roles are not given lightly and represent years of invested time and effective participation.
Wrong tree, Jon, wrong bark. Look past your hatred and distrust of what you perceive as an authority figure and look to the facts behind it. That really will be more useful to everyone involved.
The bottom line is that BPL that operates at or anywhere near the FCC limits will completely eliminate any use of spectrum it uses nearby. That's antenna physics, WHE-II, and those who claim otherwise are being stupid. For the amateur radio service, it takes about 50 dB of filtering at the source to eliminate interference. (For a number of reasons, BPL cannot be filtered at the affected receiver.)
This sort of thing is what we should be discussing here, WHE-II, not irrational and inaccurate claims that ARRL is only looking to fill the bulging coffers with $$$ or other grandstand ideas that sound good echoing from the soapbox, but have little or no basis in reality. (I loved the one about office furniture, myself.)
So why don't you help us focus on the real issues -- what BPL is and does and how it can be done in a way that will not destroy HF. That's what I have been doing from day one, in spite of your attempts to make it harder for me to do it. Many others are helping, and I invite you to be one of them.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed, Ed, Ed....
You have repeatedly said that BPL is a "flawed technology" that isn't needed in the marketplace and "won't work" ayway.
Since you THINK you know more than the likes of IBM, Motorola & Google, none of us need worry about BPL. After all, if you are correct (we know ARRL is infalable) BPL will fail on its own. After all, you have repeatedly said so.
Now, I think that you are DEAD WRONG.
I bet BPL works. I'm convinced that IBM & Motorola, with thousands & thousands of engineers, know more about this subject then you do. Gasp! But how do I know? Look at what IBM & Motorola have invented over the years. Then, look at what ARRL has invented. Look at IBM & Motorola's successes. Then look at ARRL's successes.
Only a fool would bet that ARRL knows more about this subject then the thousands of engineers at IBM & Motorola. I may not be the brightest bulb in the bunch, but I'm no fool. You believe whatever you want. The earth is flat. Osama Bin laden is just a misunderstood tedybear. ARRL knows more about this then IBM & Motorola. Pick your delusion.
Ed, you are a bright guy. Pity you are starting to believe your own B.S. Only a fool thinks YOU know more then the thousands of engineers at Motorola & IBM. But then again, maby not. After all, you are a member of the super-elite Newington Boys Club.
All hale Ed, master of the universe.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by K5XS on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jon,
What an interesting response to Ed's articulate posting.
To compare the ARRL with Motorola or IBM is absurd. Of course Motorola and IBM have created more products. That's what they do. But my sense is they may well be unaware of technical and spectral risks created by those products or services. I doubt spectral purity is a driving influence on any of their trade-off decisions.
It's clear to me that for whatever reason you are an embittered fellow, and that you can't make a point on the topic at hand without harsh comments about the ARRL. It seems your "Bash the League" blinds you to most any argument.
Too bad.
73,
Bernie Skoch
K5XS
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by W1RFI on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
His "style" here is to repeat what he wants people to believe often enough that he can claim that it is true. His mantra of "ARRL says that BPL is a flawed technology" has been simplified to the point of uselessness to help him with his anti-ARRL diatribe. The idea that all that ARRL has had to say about BPL is summed up as he puts it is, well... to use his term, stupid.
Of course BPL is a flawed technology. Any technology that exists only at the expense of the gross spectral pollution it creates on somebody's spectrum has a serious technical flaw. No matter how they may filter their sources, BPL has to operate on somebody's spectrum, and even the "ham-friendly" systems like Motorola or Current Technology are pretty strong on SW BC or WWV spectrum. But WHE-IIs oversimplification of that in purported support of the point he makes is even more flawed.
I am not sure where all of his references come from. I look at ARRL's position statement on BPL and I don't see the words he keeps attributing to ARRL and me:
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/bpl-deployment.html
Perhaps he is simplifying statements such as those made in some of ARRL's articles:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/02/08/100/
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/08/21/4/
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/03/22/104/
Etc. In all cases, the League was pretty clear that the flaw was primarily related to interference. And, even in other areas, we have seen again and again that the use of that pretty poor communications channel -- overhead power lines -- does indeed have reliability issues. In my dealings with some of the utility staff involved in the trials, I have learned that things are not nearly as rosy as the BPL folks make them out to be. That doesn't come across in his oversimplification of what he thinks that ARRL has told him, either.
The bottom line is that BPL does not work as well for broadband as touted, and the fact that overhead lines do not have as controlled characterisitics as coaxial cable or twisted pair is very much a part of that. If coaxial cable and Category 5 twisted pair weren't needed to make broadband signals propagate reliably, why did those industries have to develop those technologies. A recent presentation by an engineer in the cable industry talks about what improvements are needed to make the cable plants work well enough for broadband:
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/ARRL_EMC_Committee/Deploying_VOIP_on_the_Outside_Plant.html
Yes, it is probably possible find references in which ARRL has used the words he cites, especially early ARRL material, but in looking at the overall material ARRL has put out on BPL, there is no way that any reasonable person would conclude that what ARRL is saying is that "BPL is flawed and it won't work." His premise that seems to imply that ARRL said it won't work at all is flawed on its face, too, because if BPL didn't work at all, we would all have nothing to worry about, would we. :-)
And, of course, if he REALLY wanted to attack flawed premises and REALLY wanted to protect amateur radio, he would go after some of the things that the BPL industry has said. If his intent is to troll for responses here or to attack ARRL, he would be willing to ignore them and go after the League. You decide...
Just a few examples:
http://www.gobpl.com/sharkbites.html
And, to keep the promise I made earlier in this thread, here is a link to most of ARRL's technical papers on BPL:
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ARRL_BPL_Papers.html
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K5XS writes:
"To compare the ARRL with Motorola or IBM is absurd.
Of course Motorola and IBM have created more products. That's what they do"
UH HUH. EXACTLY.
IBM & Motorola know what they are doing. You do not get to be the king of wireless by making things that do not work. BPL works. Whether it will cause interference to HF is a different question.
"But my sense is they may well be unaware of technical and spectral risks created by those products or services".
Do you think that Motorola, the people that invented the cellphone and design, install and maintain more and diverse wireless communications systems (including HF, bet you did not know that) then any other company, is not aware of spectral issues? I might point out that Motorola makes stuff work in THE HARSHIST OF RF enviornments. Places where your HT would be totally worthless. Take, for example, on top of the Sears tower in Chicago, where there are literally dozens and dozens of repeaters and transmitters operating with antennas 10-75 feet appart, at power levels of 100-50,000 watts. They all work. Think there are no spectral issues to solve in the presence of 2 TV transmitters and dozens of repeaters? Think again.
Naaaahhhhh.
Motorola doesn't know squat about spectral issues. Motorola's RF engineers are all stupid. Motorola's global success is just dumb luck. ARRL, now they know spectral issues. After all, they maintain W1AW! Now that's a technical triumph!
Believe whatever you want. If you want to delude yourself into believing that ARRL knows more about spectral issues then Motorola, be my guest. After all, Motorola only has hundreds of RF engineers. How could Motorola, with hundreds of engineers, possibly stack up against ARRL's lab?
TIME FOR A REALITY CHECK:
1) BPL works. It has a proven abillity to deliver internet service.
2) It will likely cause some interferance with HF.
3) FCC is going to approve BPL.
4) ARRL's oppisition doesn't mean squat.
5) If you think ARRL knows more then Motorola & IBM about making telecommunications work, you are a victim of ARRL propiganda.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by W1RFI on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Believe whatever you want. If you want to delude
> yourself into believing that ARRL knows more about
> spectral issues then Motorola, be my guest. After
> all, Motorola only has hundreds of RF engineers. How
> could Motorola, with hundreds of engineers, possibly
> stack up against ARRL's lab?
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/Motorola/IMGP1006.jpg
Here is a picture of me and one of the Motorola engineers working on BPL at ARRL HQ. He and I have been learning from each other for almost a year now. You are quite free to ask him about his interaction with ARRL and, if he gives permission, to post it here. I have found it to be a productive and interactive relationship.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by N7UQA on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TIME FOR A REALITY CHECK:
1) BPL works. It has a proven abillity to deliver internet service.
2) It will likely cause some interferance with HF.
3) FCC is going to approve BPL.
4) ARRL's oppisition doesn't mean squat.
5) If you think ARRL knows more then Motorola & IBM about making telecommunications work, you are a victim of ARRL propiganda.
W9WHE
Dude, you simply do not even have half a clue do you.
1) BPL works. It has a proven abillity (ability) to deliver internet (Internet) service.
Yes it does, if you like the mickey mouse, duct tape and bailing wire method.
2) It will likely cause some interferance (interference) with HF.
If you really believe it to cause "some" interference with HF, I suggest you move to Cottonwood Arizona and tell me if the interference you get is just "some".
3) FCC is going to approve BPL.
They already did, only because the commissioners are politicians, and have even less of an understanding about RF and transmission lines than you do.
4) ARRL's oppisition (opposition) doesn't mean squat.
Only because you are an ARRL basher, your self proclaimed ARRL boycott is about as effective as a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.
5) If you think ARRL knows more then Motorola & IBM about making telecommunications work, you are a victim of ARRL propiganda. (propaganda)
I never thought this, you seem to be the only one who does.
The power distribution grid was never intended to deliver broadband RF signals, that's why regular power line interference can be such a problem. It's simply a fact of the wrong medium being used for the wrong purpose. It's like saying I could supply power to my house off of a bunch CAT 5 network cable, but that doesn't mean I should.
Do me a favor, why don't you beg the power company to run BPL to your home. Then tell me the interference you get is minimal, or a non issue.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
|
|
|
by W1RFI on September 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Maybe it is time to form Part-15.org?
http://www.part-15.org points to a viable organization of wireless internet service providers.
The individual membership looks to start at $295.00 per year for the first year and $195.00 to renew:
http://www.part-15.org/membership/benefits/general.html
Are you a member? Have you made any contribution to their work or web page?
Ed
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
High Power Mobile Notes
Non-Petroleum Electric Power Generation
Using Emergency Backup Power -- When the Lights Go Out!
Batteries
Do You Have a Little More Power?
Other News Articles
New Vice Directors in Central, Roanoke Divisions:
New Amateur Radio Web Site Launches:
Announcing Railroad Depots on the Air:
Rowley Shears, G8KW (SK):
Cuba Facilitates Equipment to Amateur Radio Operators:
|
|
|
