|
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
|
Nation's First Citywide Broadband-Over-Powerline Site Inaugurated:
from
TechWeb
on
October 6, 2005
Website:
http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=171203271
View comments about this article!
Nation's First Citywide Broadband-Over-Powerline Site Inaugurated:
See the full story here:
LINK
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Nation's First Citywide Broadband-Over-Powerline S
|
|
|
by K1IR on October 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am visiting VA this week, and the 11 o'clock news had a short spot on this Manassas BPL rollout. The coverage included a mention of interference to radio communication services and showed a guy twiddling an HT. The word is out there.
Good thing Verizon and others are rolling out fiber to blow this BPL crap away.
Jim K1IR
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide Broadband-Over-Powerli
|
|
|
by K4GVT on October 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim, check our website for some more info on Manassas
www.k4gvt.com
|
| |
|
Nation's First Citywide BPL System Works!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
ARRL and Ed Hare told us that "BPL is a "FLAWED TECHNOLOGY" that "WON'T WORK". Ed even dismissed hams that suggested that BPL technical hurdles could be overcome. Remember Ed?
How can they provide internet service over ten square miles with a "FLAWED TECHNOLOGY" that "WON'T WORK"? Impossible. No way. Can't happen.
OBVIOUSLY, those people can't be getting internet service. They only THINK they are getting internet service. Its all smoke and mirrors. After all, BPL is a:
"FLAWED TECHNOLOGY" that "WON'T WORK".
I'm astonished. I'm dumbfounded. I'm shocked beyond belief. How can this be? I was certain that ARRL and Ed Hare knew FAR MORE about this stuff then the hundreds of dumb engineers at Motorola, IBM, Matshusta, & Google. Afterall, what the heck could engineers from Motorola, IBM, & Matshusta, know about RF, computers and BPL that the ARRL and Ed Hare don't?
Appearantly: "EVERYTHING".
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide BPL System Works!
|
|
|
by K4XR on October 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE - I hope that you do realize -
1. IBM is not making BPL hardware at all. I don't believe that any of their hardware engineers have stated that they believe that an Access BPL system will work when it is implemented using HF spectrum under current FCC regulations. IBM is only providing network administration, not hardware integration or support. IBM will be more than happy to administrate a network using a string and two tin cans, if you are willing to pay. I don't consider their participation a ringing endorsement, since they have no investment in the technology.
2. The Motorola system is not an Access BPL system. Surely, even you must realize this. Therefore, they, in fact, must have agreed with Ed, since they evaluated the requirements and chose not to implement HF Access BPL.
3. Google has only invested in BPL, and from some of the latest information, their BPL investment is aimed almost totally at Mexico. Mexico may have very different radiated emission requirements than the US, if they have any at all. Ed comments concerned Access BPL systems in the US that meet Part 15 requirements. I don't believe that Google has an engineering staff that has evaluated and decided that Access BPL is a viable technology in the US market.
4. Consider this. Manassas began deployment of this system over four years ago, and has (an astounding) 700 subscribers. If you look at their press releases for the last several years, you will learn that they are alway about to add another 500 to 1000 customers, but it seems that those never get added! This system has also been plagued with equipment problems (mainly on the underground lines!),and FCC complaints which indcate the system is not Part 15 compliant.
As a comparison, a wireless system started in a fairly rural area of Alabama thirteen months ago has over eleven hundred subscribers.
Is the Manassas system a success in your mind? Does the Manassas system prove that Access BPL is a viable technology?
Craig K4XR
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide BPL System Works!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Still at it, I see. :-) Sigh...
I can only presume that even after being offered significant additional explanation here again.. and again... and again.... that you are simply delighting in reposting the same tired old simplification that sounds good to your ears echoing from your soapbox.
For those that want a more balanced view:
http://www.arrl.org/bpl
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ARRL_BPL_Papers.html
Eham.net really needs to add a filter that prevents posts that simply repeat earlier posts. :-)
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide BPL System Works!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually I do.
On one hand, ARRL and Ed Hare were telling anybody that would listen that BPL would not work due to transformer, dirty connection, distance issues, etc, etc. On the other, Motorola, IBM, Matshusta & Google, collectively with hundreds of engineers, knew that it would. I have repeatedly pointed out that Motorola, IBM, Matshusta collectively know a little more about this stuff then ARRL. But nobody could tell ARRL and ED Hare that! Indeed, ARRL zealots argued that ARRL and ED Hare DID know more about this stuff then Motorola, IBM, Matshusta & Google!
The next time ARRL and ED Hare tell you something, don't blindly accept it as fact. Just because ARRL says it, does not make it so. ESPECIALLY when people like Motorola (an RF giant), IBM (a computer giant), Matshusta (a consumer electronics giant) say to the contrary. ARRL has waged and lost the WRONG battle over BPL. Instead of focusing on compatabillity, they focused on killing it. Well, ARRL lost. Now, after having tried to kill BPL, we will have far less to say about BPL standards and regulation.
While I HATE to see BPL succeed anywhere and I hope that it dies a swift economic death, it is nice to be able to tell the almighty, the infalable ARRL and Ed Hare:
"I told you so..........."
ESPECIALLY after ARRL and Ed were so arrogantly certain that I was so stupid. And they wonder why they can't even get 1/4 of licensed hams to join!
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide BPL System Works!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ED Hare writes:
"Eham.net really needs to add a filter that prevents posts that simply repeat earlier posts"
Translation: Eham.net really needs to add a filter that prevents posts that criticize ARRL".
Sure Ed, censorship. That's the answer. Eham.net needs to squelch all those that disagree with and point out the mistakes of the almighty ARRL.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide BPL System Works!
|
|
|
by W9SN on October 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
With all this childish bickering going on, it amazes me that anything would ever get done. Some people just love to argue no matter the subject. Just hit your scroll, click your mouse, and roll your eyes!
Division among the troops leads to defeat, regardless of the task.
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide BPL System Works!
|
|
|
by KG9IO on October 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Come on guys, lets get back to the code/no code debate now.
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide BPL System Works!
|
|
|
by AB3AX on October 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<On one hand, ARRL and Ed Hare were telling anybody that would listen that BPL would not work due to transformer, dirty connection, distance issues, etc, etc. On the other, Motorola, IBM, Matshusta & Google, collectively with hundreds of engineers, knew that it would. I have repeatedly pointed out that Motorola, IBM, Matshusta collectively know a little more about this stuff then ARRL. But nobody could tell ARRL and ED Hare that! Indeed, ARRL zealots argued that ARRL and ED Hare DID know more about this stuff then Motorola, IBM, Matshusta & Google!>>
I have followed the whole BPL debate very closely from the start. I don't know where you get your facts from. Neither Ed Hare nor the ARRL have been trying to kill off BPL. Ed has always stated that if a way could be found for them to reduce their interference to acceptable levels, then he would be more than happy - a view much more moderate than held by many of us on this vexing subject.
You mention Motorola. In case you are unaware, they have been working very closely with Ed to try to insure that they don't cause interfernce to us and we don't cause interference to them - indeed they have been doing (successful) ingress testing of their system at ARRL HQ in CT - hardly the actions you would expect from an ARRL hell-bent in the destruction of all-things BPL-related.
If you want to see what the market really thinks about Access BPL, just check out Ambient's (ABT) chart for the last few months - the direction is inexorably downwards.
Finally, who is this Matshusta that you repeatedly mention? If you can't even spell their name, then that in itself gives me some insight into the motivation for this pointless ARRL baiting in which you are a more than willing participant.
73 - Gordon AB3AX
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide Broadband-Over-Powerli
|
|
|
by N7UQA on October 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ED Hare writes: "Eham.net really needs to add a filter that prevents posts that simply repeat earlier posts" Translation: Eham.net really needs to add a filter that prevents posts that criticize ARRL".
Sure Ed, censorship. That's the answer. Eham.net needs to squelch all those that disagree with and point out the mistakes of the almighty ARRL. W9WHE
I have suggested this MANY times, but the almighty W9WHE will scream CENSORSHIP!!! W9WHE would call all the moderators on slashdot.org a bunch of communist censors.
I cannot speak for anyone else but I am sick and tired of W9WHE's irrelevant posts here on eham. What eham needs, and is long over due, is a member based moderation system like slashdot.org has. Most everything he posts fall into the category of flame bait or troll.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide Broadband-Over-Powerli
|
|
|
by AB2M on October 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Quite frankly, comments like his (and they come from a bunch of people) are what I think about every time I see Eham.net asking me to subscribe. When they moderate this site and take out the trash, it will be worth subscribing to.
|
| |
|
Nation's First Citywide Broadband-Over-Powerline S
|
|
|
by N0XMZ on October 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just every news article I read showers BPL with all this praise about how it will "bring broadband to the rural folks" that can't get cable or DSL. Funny thing is, I have yet to hear of one single rural BPL installation being rolled out. Manassas, VA is a city. It may be small, but this is not the "wiring up the farmers" that the BPL proponents keep claiming they can/will do. Gee, I wonder why that is..... hmmmmm???
A sucker is born every day. I suppose I could sell deeds to the Brooklyn Bridge so long as I tell people that it will benefit children of those poor farmers that can't get broadband (except through SATELLITE - but for some reason those companies just don't seem like they ever advertise).
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide BPL System Works!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I have followed the whole BPL debate very closely
> from the start. I don't know where you get your
> facts from. Neither Ed Hare nor the ARRL have been
> trying to kill off BPL. Ed has always stated that if
> a way could be found for them to reduce their
> interference to acceptable levels, then he would be
> more than happy - a view much more moderate than
> held by many of us on this vexing subject.
I have gone one step farther than that and have been actively helping the BPL industry design BPL that can address its interference issues. To wit, our cooperation with Motorola:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/29/1/
I serve on the IEEE BPL committee, as a member of the EMC working group. I chair the IEEE EMC Society Standard Development Committee BPL study project and the ANSI accredited C63 committee's BPL study group, as well as the C63 subcommittee on immunity.
The issues that WHE-II trashes here are the very issues that the BPL industry has put on the plate, where existing noise levels, electric motors and other such issues can and do interfere with BPL, as do radiated signals from licensed services. The latter has been tested by me and others to show that as little as 2 watts from a mobile station can take BPL down.
See the reports on Metavox testing in Potomac, MD to see the ingress issues that can be associated with BPL.
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6515383154
Most of my opinion on the matter has been formed from things said by the BPL industry itself. I have run around BPL areas and helped BPL engineers track down those sparking insulators. We have seen the fact that expensive repeaters have to be installed on overhead lines every 500-2000 feet prove too costly for major electric utilities like PPL.
These points have been made again and again here, yet Jonathan keeps at it, ignoring anything that is said by anyone to the point where he keeps repeating the same old song, simplifying a very complex subject and ARRL involvement in same past the point of credibility. I don't mind that so much, but don't want those who haven't had the opportunity to read the wealth of information on the subject to see only his posts and presume they could be true.
His prime example, Motorola, had confidence in ARRL engineers to the point where they asked for our input as they designed their system. My colleagues in the EMC field have enough confidence in what ARRL is putting on the table, and in our ability to work productively in a standards environment with those that hold differing views, to ask me to chair some of their work.
Far from the picture that WHE-II tries to paint here, eh? And keep in mind that he knows all of what I posted above, yet still says what he chooses to say.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
Nation's First Citywide Broadband-Over-Powerline S
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on October 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What about the tired old "it won't survive because it loses money" excuse?
I see more and more BPL investments on the increase than on the decrease.
73
Dave
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide Broadband-Over-Powerli
|
|
|
by KB3IMY on October 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
PPL decides against entering broadband market
PPL has decided not to enter the market as a broadband Internet provider over its power lines following a trial in some Lehigh Valley markets, the company reported on its Web site Monday.
The company will end the market trial for residential customers on Oct. 31. Locations affected by the decision include Emmaus, Whitehall, Upper Macungie, Hanover Township and north Bethlehem.
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-pplbroadband1003,0,5286621.story
Mike-KB3IMY
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide Broadband-Over-Powerli
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on October 7, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One cannot reason with unreasonable people.
There are about 5 or 6 people whose posts I never read. Sorta like not tuning in BC stations on 40 meters.
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide Broadband-Over-Powerli
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 7, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> What about the tired old "it won't survive because
> it loses money" excuse?
>
> I see more and more BPL investments on the increase
> than on the decrease.
I see mixed reports on that issue, too. On one hand, I personally know an ISP operator in Ohio who carefully analyzed BPL from a financial point of view and he has concluded he can make money at it.
On the other hand, in its recent announcment that it was abandoning BPL, PPL was quite clear that it felt it could not make a financial go of BPL.
There is ongoing interest in BPL, and a number of electric utility operators have told me that they would be negligent in not looking at it. However, few BPL systems have gone commercial, and with the end of the PPL system, at least one of those has called it quits for financial reasons.
I think the jury is still out on the finances of BPL, although it is pretty clear to me that if it can be economically worthwhile for utilities, it will not be a major cash cow, and its viability depends on its use for both access BPL and for utility purposes. What is pretty clear is that for access BPL alone, it can't really be made to work well. With the addition of utility uses, it may be worthwhile for utilities to get involved. Some hope to lease their lines to ISPs to provide access BPL, but if that is not economically viable, utilities will be left without the use of the equipment for their own purposes.
The ARRL BPL page has a "business and financial" page where I have put all of the known BPL business studies, pro and con, free and paid. They are all over the place, too, in their predictions, ranging from reporting BPL to be an economic bust to it will make investors and utilities rich. Amateur Radio has no direct interest in the financial aspects of BPL, but I do note with interest that none of the studies I have seen include the very real costs of dealing with interference issues or the need and costs of cleaning up all the noisy insulators on the lines to make it work well.
The market will have to determine whether BPL is economically viable or not. I think it too early to tell for certain, although the leading indicators are not all that good. More BPL projects have been abandoned than have gone to commercial status. And the stock of the one publicly traded company has dropped from its high of around $6.00 a share a few years back to $0.14 a share as of yesterday. They have invested $75 million of shareholder money so far, with a few modems deployed and sold. Others have secured $100 million investments and are succesfully deploying commercially so far.
Like all of the issues I have seen, no simple summary will suffice to describe a very complex and interconnected economic situation. IMHO, Amateur Radio is better off staying out of that fight, because we really don't have the standing as amateurs to care.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide BPL System Works!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 7, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB3AX writes:
"Neither Ed Hare nor the ARRL have been trying to kill off BPL"
Actually, they have. The ARRL stance is that BPL and Amateur radio are incompatable and BPL systems must be shut down. You may recall that ARRL demanded the immeadiate shutdown of BPL systems.
+++++++++++++++++++
"Ed has always stated that if a way could be found for them to reduce their interference to acceptable levels, then he would be more than happy - a view much more moderate than held by many of us on this vexing subject"
Actually, in discussions with me right here on EHam, Ed has consistently argued that one cannot make BPL and Ham radio compatable. When I suggested that an imbedded signal in BPL might be recognized and eliminated by a "smart" filter in ham radios, Ed snubbed his nose, suggesting that it was unrealistic.
+++++++++++++++++
ARRL's position has allways been "we know more about this stuff" then anybody. Motorola, IBM, Matshusta, they are all just stupid. Anybody that disagrees with ARRL must be squelched. Ed and his handful of chronies can attack all they please, but there is a silent majority that looks at all of this and says...."You know, I think WHE is right". There is a reason more than 3/4 of licensed hams shun ARRL.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide BPL System Works!
|
|
|
by N3EVL on October 7, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ham Factoid #675898...
"99.9% of Radio Amateurs *refuse* to pay any attention to WHE-II rants on eham" :)
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide BPL System Works!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 7, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Now MY 75% "factoid" is based upon FCC and ARRL data...where do you get yours?
|
| |
|
Nation's First Citywide Broadband-Over-Powerline S
|
|
|
by NY7Q on October 7, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yawn!!! Lets get back to the CW/NO CW DEBATE.
|
| |
|
Nation's First Citywide Broadband-Over-Powerline S
|
|
|
by K2JVI on October 7, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To Ed W1RFI- I just wanted to thank you for your insights and wisdom regarding the whole BPL situation.
I just wonder how many of the Computer Science Degreed IT people understand the true nature of this "beast",probably not too many!!
I am an IT professional(network,WAN support),and I started before there were PC's, by all rights I should be in favor of this technology,but based on my knowledge of network and cable platforms I am not!.
Ed, you are part of an overlooked minority in this country,your're COMPETENT!!
73's.
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide BPL System Works!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 7, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Now MY 75% "factoid" is based upon FCC and ARRL
> data...where do you get yours?
If you say that 75% of people with amateur licenses are not ARRL members, you are correct.
It is when you grandstand and say that they all "refuse" to be members that I ask the questions you won't answer. And, of course, you always explain that they aren't members because of your reason of the day. :-)
Care to take a crack at my list again?
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide Broadband-Over-Powerli
|
|
|
by K1CJS on October 7, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed, don't even pay attention to W9WHE's spoutings--he's been anti ARRL since before he was born. ;-) His callsign, I think, says it all--'WHinE, WHinE, WHinE.'
I for one would like to thank you for your work on the BPL issue. I feel that implementation of this flawed technology has been slowed down substantially due to your efforts.
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide BPL System Works!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 7, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Actually, in discussions with me right here on EHam,
> Ed has consistently argued that one cannot make BPL
> and Ham radio compatable. When I suggested that and
> imbedded signal in BPL might be recognized and
> eliminated by a "smart" filter in ham radios, Ed
> snubbed his nose, suggesting that it was
> unrealistic.
Your idea is not "unrealistic," it is technically unsupportable. The BPL signal has broadband modulation that for any filtering purpose is noise. There is no way to embed any signal into that BPL stream that could include inforamtion about all of the modulation on all of the frequencies it uses.
If BPL opeates at or near the FCC limits on amateur spectrum, it will render the ham bands it uses completely useless locally. If it were possible to dig signals 60 dB out of the noise, hams would be doing it right now with the present man-made noise levels.
The only way that BPL can be filtered is at the source, by not using spectrum that is in use locally and using sufficient filtering to ensure that the emissions in the protected spectrum are below the levels that will be above the existing noise levels.
And even if I were wrong, are you really advocating that all hams need to replace their receivers with these super-special filtering techniques that you claim hams should develop so you can say that ARRL was wrong?
Do you think that you represent 75% of hams when you propose that?
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
First Citywide BPL System won't work!
|
|
|
by N7UQA on October 7, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE
>When I suggested that and
> imbedded (embedded) signal in BPL might be recognized and
> eliminated by a "smart" filter in ham radios, Ed
> snubbed his nose, suggesting that it was
> unrealistic.
Come on, this would NEVER happen. Why should I have to filter this noise, it shouldn't be there in the first place. You have NO concept of practical engineering, the DSP hardware and software needed to detect and remove ODFM signals would cost more than the transceiver. Even if it were possible this filtering would have to be done early in the IF stage (pre AGC). Your suggestion of this "magic filter" is unrealistic and shows that you have no concept of transceiver design.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: First Citywide BPL System won't work!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I thought more about this, and seeing as a technical explanation didn't help Jonathan understand, let me try a more intuitive one.
Using a single pilot tone to allow a receiver with some yet-to-be-invented DSP filtering to remove all of the BPL noise from a ham band would be no more realistic for BPL than one could expect to us a single pilot tone to remove all of the SSB voice signals from a band to let us copy a single one that was 60 dB below the others.
One cannot put enough information in a narrowband pilot tone to allow all of that modulation -- whether SSB voice or the modulation of the BPL signals, to be encoded into the tone so that the filter could use it to cancel out noise. There are limits to many things in RF communications, and the theories about noise and information show quickly why what he suggests is simply not possible, never mind the issues of practicality and expense.
Any "filtering" that has been done to improve things for amateur radio has been done on the BPL side of things. Stop-band filters and OFDM notching (turning off some of the BPL carriers) is the only way to protect some spectrum.
But even then, BPL must operate at tens of dB greater than the noise on the power line, and it must use spectrum, so somebody's spectrum will be geting trashed, no matter what they do.
Hey, I have an idea. WHE-II could start asking the BPL manufacturers to develop the filters needed to allow them to pull their BPL signals 60 dB out of the noise. Then they could drop their power levels and not cause interference. (Of course, this is equally impossible for them.) Oh, wait... that won't work, because then he couldn't preach how "Ed Hare and the ARRL" were wrong, wrong, wrong... :-)
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide BPL System Works!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1RFI wrote:
"Your idea [of filtering] is not "unrealistic," it is technically unsupportable"
Sigh (shaking head in amazement)
Ed, people like you said that wireless communication was impossible. Then ARRL invented radio.
Time was when a phone conversation required a wire, until ARRL invented the cellphone.
Time was when we had to tollerate "tuner uppers", until ARRL invented the "notch filter".
Time was when a ham had to tune his own radio, amplifier and transmatch, until ARRL invented automatic tuning.
Time was when we needed a 35 pound, 110 volt radio to communicate over VHF, until ARRL invented the HT.
Time was when "noise" was impossible to remove, until ARRL invented "Digital Noise Reduction".
AND MY PERSONAL FAVORITE:
BPL IS A "FLAWED TECHNOLOGY" that "WON'T WORK". Then Motorola, IBM and Google exposed ARRL's technical prowess for what it really is.
Ed, for a guy that told us that BPL "Won't work" don't you think that telling us that advanced digital filtering "won't work" is straining YOUR credibillity just a little bit? OOps...wait. I forgot. You are the ARRL. You know everything and guys like Motorola, IBM and Matshusta are just too stupid to recognize your infinite wisdom. Never mind.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide BPL System Works!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The last word is yours, Jonathan, unless someone else wants to try to convince you why it is not practical to expect all hams to replace their rigs with a new filtering technology that surpasses the limits of Shannon's information theorum so that you can say that ARRL was wrong.
At this point, I have made my technical case and you have made yours and I am willing to thrown my fate to the court of public opinion here.
We will know if you feel the same by whether you respond or not.
Good luck.
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide BPL System Works!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed:
I guess that if you can't dazzel us with your brilliance, you will try to baffle us with BS. Well, OK...
Claude E. Shannon's "A mathmetical information theory of communication" theory was published in 1948, nearly 60 years ago. Time to come up to date, Ed.
His theory viewed communications using a mathematical statistical medel. He proposed a way to determine the capacity of a communication channel , i.e. the channel coding problem. This is not relivant to BPL.
A second part deals with data compression. Using a statistical description, his theory quantifies the number of bits needed to describe the data. In lossless data compression the data must be reconstructed exactly. (not necessary in ham radio as the human brain can fill in the gaps)
However, his theorems only apply in a situation where one transmitting user wishes to communicate to one receiving user.
In mathematical terms, his formula roughly stated:
"where p(mi) is the probability of message mi) that, when applied to an information source, could determine the capacity of the channel required to transmit the source. If the logarithm in the formula is taken to base 2, then it gives a measures of message information and entropy in bits."
So Ed, care to explain why you think Shannon's 1948 theory applies? or, as I suspect, are you just trying to impress us with BS?
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: Nation's First Citywide BPL System Works!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed....so are you going to explain why you think Shannon's 1948 theory is relevant to advanced digital filtering, which, by the way, DID NOT EXIST IN 1948?
W9WHE
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
After The Dust Settles What's Left?
ARRL Renews Demand for FCC to Shut Down New York BPL Field Trial:
UK Regulator's Study Points Up Limitations of Amperion-Equipped BPL Trial:
Public BPL Database Access Restrictions Removed:
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Interference Complaints:
Other News Articles
DX News -- ARRL DX Bulletin #47:
This Week on the Radio:
FCC Looks to Revise, Clarify Vanity Call Sign Rules:
ARRL Sweepstakes Manager Ken Adams, K5KA (SK):
ARRL, McSnyder Software Team Up to Provide iTunes Apps:
|
|
|
