|
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
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
from
Red Herring
on
January 20, 2007
View comments about this article!
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
See the full story here:
LINK
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It amazes me how an "army of investors" will throw money at just about any technology that rolls along that they clearly don't understand. How they ever think BPL will ever have any possible chance of ever competing with the broadband big dogs is beyond me.
73 KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Investor Alert... Investor Alert...
Satellite Internet - No Phone Or Cable Service Needed!
"It no longer matters if you live beyond the service area of high speed cable or conventional dsl service. Now, most everyone around the globe with a clear view of the Southern sky, can experience satellite internet no matter where they live!"
http://www.satelliteinsight.com/direcway.html
|
| |
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W3LI on January 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
BPL will win, it's big business just like big business won in getting rid of the MORRIS CODE requirement for a amateur license. The manufactures won, the sellers won the ARRL won.
|
| |
|
Would-be Word Artist
|
|
|
by AI2IA on January 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Logic? No. Word artistry? Attempted.
...wending its way, would force, just full of static, operators claim, a ham radio enthusiast, ill-fated Telecommunications Act, gets right into the middle, high-stakes battle, small army of investors, heavily invested in BPL, a ham radio group, mainstream vendors, IBM, Motorola, Google, regulatory glitches, has been wall-papering, complaints, accused, bias, regurgitating, the group claimed, claims 160,000 members, outspoken in its criticism, comes under fire ...
CHEAP WORD ART - ALL BUZZ WORDS, EMOTION INVOKING WORDS, FAMOUS NAMES VERSUS UNKNOWN GROUP, NEGATIVE ADJECTIVES VERSUS POSITIVE ADJECTIVES
Is it any wonder that unintelligent wannabe "investors" get separated from their money every business day? As P.T. Barnum said, "There is a sucker born every minute, and two to take him."
|
| |
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W1YW on January 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Big business is cool because business is cool.
Don't like it? Move to North Korea. Ans stop cashing your entitlement checks, that 'big business' probably helped pay for...
And this bill is a joke. Not a chance it will pass.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by N0EW on January 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, Morris the Cat, from the grave no less, has given all amateur radio operators a severe beating by eliminating all claw testing. No longer will such irritating scratching be heard on the air. I knew this, but I didn't know Morris was in cat-hoots with the ARRL, and the FCC, masterminding our collective demise.
If you're not careful you'll learn something new every day!
With regard to the bill, and the actual topic of discussion at this time, it has almost zero chance of passing. Has any bill he presented that was purported to protect amateur radio operators been passed into law? I can't think of any.
Face it, no one on Capital Hill cares about us. We represent zero money, and we are not buying other professional services for congressmen, therefore we are insignificant in their eyes.
The best thing about BPL: Other technology is so much better.
BPL it is fighting an uphill technical battle. This is why so much effort is being spent on buying the FCC approval of a seriously flawed concept. The regulatory fight will be won by the power companies. That is how most laws become laws - someone pays for them. We are watching an interesting example of how American Law develops and we have ring-side seats because it is affecting a topic of interest to us and to those that keep us informed as to its progress toward becoming law. How lucky is that?!
The regulatory battle is lost. We have little change of success with a legal battle because we can't out-spend the big power companies there either. We can offer delaying tactics in both cases, but that is about all we can do.
Our only hope of defeating BPL?
Power companies have wire strung almost everywhere and buckets of our money to spend to force their view through. So that is what will happen. The only remaining question is who will buy poorer service?
The free market is our only hope (which isn't truly free, but that is another rant). This is where the defects of BPL against other wide-band services can no longer be hidden. Reports of improper testing criteria won't matter here. The proof is in the pudding. If people are given the choice of both a cheaper and a better Internet service provider they will take it. Most Americans have certainly been deeducated, but not yet to the point where they can't tell the difference between an immediate image display and a web page taking 5-minutes to display. That is one of the few things that affects their cartoonish lives, so they'll buy the better service, _if_ it is offered. (As with cable, the market is more likely to become a regulated monopoly than a free market.)
In the longer view, we are likely working on borrowed time anyway....
So long as we serve a real need following whatever the last big storm was we'll keep our tickets. Should such service ever end we'll soon thereafter be outlawed and those natural resources will be allocated to the highest bidder.
Fortunately for us, government doesn't work, and the weather will always be severe at times. This means people lose power in the middle of winter, and winds blow homes and an occasional hospital or retirement home flat.
"As long as rivers flood, and the earth tears, and the sea washes away the coast, and blackouts take place, there will be a place for the amateur radio operator."
Best regards from the Infernal Optimist!
Erik n0ew
|
| |
|
BPL puts BPL in harm's way:
|
|
|
by AI2IA on January 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Simply put, the article does not inform. It is just empty spin. What is important is the bill and what happens to it. This will give us some idea of how the rogues in Congress will view the BPL issue. Beyond this, Congress is not the Judicial System, and beyond that is the all the negative technical liabilities that are intrinsic to BPL. All of this will probably cause BPL to slip into oblivion before the year's end. Power lines were just never designed to carry RF in the first place. We don't hear about any great strides by BPL on the international scene, either.
If business is not good business, then it's poor business or monkey business. BPL falls into the latter category.
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W8VVE on January 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I always thought it was Morse code...oh well..doesn't
really matter much anymore. Sam W8VVE
|
| |
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by N0XMZ on January 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What the hell does Morse have to do with BPL? I swear, some of you people insist on beating that dead horse in every topic - related or not. Go pound brass!
As for the TOPIC at hand, hams aren't the only ones who have a stake in the HF spectrum. I often wonder why the broadcasters seem silent on the issue. Maybe it's because they know that BPL doesn't have a prayer in the marketplace. Verizon is rolling out FIOS (fiber) with some very high speeds. Wireless internet is all the rage. Go visit any computer forum and besides the occasional news article like this one, BPL isn't even on the radar. Compared to Cable, FIOS, and DSL, it's relatively slow.
And as I've said a million times, regarless of the hype, it will never be deployed in rural areas for the same reason CATV hasn't been. The ROI just isn't there. As has already been pointed out, satellite is the only viable broadband solution for rural customers. Well, maybe not the only one - Wi-MAX is also being deployed in such areas.
I fully support the Congressman's bill, but I'd also like to see something proposed to combat what I would consider an even greater threat to ham radio - antenna prohibitions.
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The economics of BPL:
http://www.isp-planet.com/research/rankings/usa.html
|
| |
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by AE1X on January 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's a shame that you people still feel it's necessary to inject the code/no code debate here.
The real issue is that Representative Ross is attempting put the FCC before the real facts in the only way it can.
Yes, one issue is big business and big money. The other is that there is a good justifcation for the 'Smart Grid' concept. The problem is who will loose spectrum for this system to be implemented?
Look, HF station to station communications is seen as unreliable, period. One must employ frequency agilitiy to insure that the message gets through. Satellites do this more efficiently. The FCC appears to be moving toward a definition of reliability in communications. Anything else, should be moved to infrastructure where reliability can be assured.
Ken
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by K4IA on January 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why do these articles always pit ham radio against progress? Is there an agenda here? Are the purposely picking on the weakest little guy?
BPL pollutes the entire radio spectrum - not just ham radio. Where are the military, aviation, public service, shortwave broadcasters, etc.?
No article is complete without considering those other services. Hams should insist that any discussion be all inclusive. Don't let them gang up on us.
|
| |
|
BPL Is Rationality-Resistant ... SatComm Is Shaky
|
|
|
by KI4PMG on January 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As many of you know, HAMS FOR ACTION and I sometimes try to "motivate" ARRL to advocate HOA antenna reform more vigorously.
HOWEVER: On BPL, ARRL is Right On to be Up In Arms.
****
(1) Even at this late stage in the game, I still hear people saying we don't have to worry about interference-generating forms of BPL because the marketplace will never accept them.
Well, I remember hearing some people saying, 2 or 3 years ago, that we didn't have to worry about interference-generating forms of BPL because the FCC's technological staff would never approve them. As it turned out, of course, some of the FCC's highly politicized Commissioners couldn't have cared less about what the technological experts were saying -- whether they were the government's own experts, or independent experts, or experts hired by ARRL.
What some people still aren't getting is that THE BPL GAME IS RIGGED. The political push for BPL has nothing to do with technological rationality OR economic rationality. It's all about using the power of government to favor some politically connected competitors over others.
Technical problems with some of the BPL technologies? Ignore the technological experts (and the data, too).
Problems with marketplace acceptance? Just get some Federal Government agency or agencies -- handing out loans and/or grants for "improving" rural connections to The Internet and/or "urban redevelopment" -- to tilt the grants and/or loans toward spending the money on BPL. Yup, note my prediction: Taxpayer-financed BPL commercialization (or at least an attempt to arrange it). You heard it here first!
In short:
Interference-generating forms of BPL are a POLITICAL problem, and as such they require a POLITICAL solution.
Kudos to ARRL for recruiting NAB as an ally on BPL! Now: What about trying to expand the coalition to include manufacturers and/or retailers of those BPL technologies which DON'T generate much interference? Instead of framing the battle as ARRL and NAB versus BPL In General, how about making the battle "Quiet" BPL versus "Noisy" BPL?
Needless to say, I support ARRL's lawsuit 100%.
****
(2) Re the point that satellite communications are "more efficient" than terrestrial "station-to-station" communications:
IF this is true at all, it's only true when the satellites are orbiting and functioning.
Which is another way of saying:
Only if we don't have a major war, conventional or otherwise, between one or more of the world's superpowers (and/or superpower "proxies").
Both the United States and the former Soviet Union developed anti-satellite rockets back in the 1980s, testing them successfully against their own satellites. China just did the same thing last week, using an anti-satellite rocket to destroy one of its own satellites -- in an orbit more than 500 miles above the earth.
In addition, last summer China "painted" some U.S. satellites. That is: China illuminated them with a ground-based laser which, at a higher power level, could have disabled the U.S. satellites or even destroyed them.
These developments, BTW, were first reported in AVIATION & SPACE WEEKLY -- and the reports were later carried by THE WASHINGTON POST.
In short, folks, this news didn't come out of THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER.
It all makes Good Old-Fashioned, mostly earthbound and largely decentralized (that is, multiple target) Amateur Radio communications look a little more survivable in times of war. Doesn't it?
73,
de Don Schellhardt KI4PMG
pioneerpath@hotmail.com
(804) 433-7268
URL: www.hamsforaction.net
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Is Rationality-Resistant ... SatComm Is Sh
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The "real" issue is antenna restrictions. Not BPL.
73 de Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W1YW on January 21, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As I said, this Bill has no basis and therefore will not pass.
Of course, saying it is in 'ham's way' is cute, but not factually accurate. The extant fixed station FCC complaints by the 730,000+ US 'hams' are either at the zero or two level. ZERO or TWO.
The number of valid harmful interference complaints could well be ZERO.
In other words, there is no factual and actionable evidence that Access BPL prevents Part 97 licensees from accomplishing their mission--and therefore no reason for such a bill to move forward.
It may make some small fraction of the 'ham' population to feel wanted and/or important, but in the sense that it does not serve the PUBLIC INTEREST, said bill is, IMO, foolish.
And I am sure that other folks who work for other congressman an senators will concur with this assessment of irrelevance in the public interest.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Within the Spinmaster's article:
|
|
|
by AI2IA on January 21, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From Cassimir Medford's own crummy article:
"The new bill calls for the FCC to do a comprehensive study within 90 days after the date of the passage and enactment of the bill.
The bill requires the FCC to produce new, improved rules governing BPL service transmission. It also calls for the FCC to come up with a safe distance that will guarantee no frequency interference from BPL emissions."
Regardless of passage of the bill or not, these proposals are good ones, good for amateur radio and other users of the spectrum, and good for potential investors in BPL. Those who blab otherwise are just practicing on their own trumpets.
|
| |
|
Wisdom of the Ancients
|
|
|
by AE6RO on January 21, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I posted this excerpt elsewhere but apparently people haven't read it. I'll put it up again here for your entertainment and edification. If that makes me a Luddite, then that's a badge I'll wear with pride.
From the pages of QST, February 1943 (pg. 48) comes a sad tale about a ham who got gigged for powerline signal radiation. For you <40 young'uns who get their history from the Internet, the government shut down American Amateur radio "for the duration" of World War II. One of the things non-G.I. hams did was communicate via radio sent over powerlines, just like today's BPL. They used power levels from five to twenty five watts, and frequency of around 175 Kc (the longwaves were supposed to radiate less or not at all):
"Well, here is another report on my wired-radio activities, perhaps the last for some time. It seems that my signals were radiating, because I had a call from the FCC monitoring officials. Since I have been using a frequency of about 150 KC, it seems that I interfered with naval comunications at a station about ten miles away and was heard at a distance of about fifty miles. Unfortunately, I can't tell any more about the conditions of reception, since that is all I was told...
Please tell the gang on wired radio to keep their power down to the absolute minimum. I have never run over 25 watts input. I don't believe I was heard until I increased power from 12 watts to 25 watts about October fifth, but can't be sure. W6*** was also causing interference, and I believe he was using about 15 to 20 watts. I was told that the other 5 stations which I mentioned in previous reports had not been heard. I don't believe any of them used over 5 to 10 watts.
I don't think the work on wired radio should stop; keep it up, but let us all be careful about (radio frequency) radiation ...
It seems to me that the cause of this radiation may be the lack of cancellation between the two wires of the system. I was coupling only to the 115-volt circuit, hence one wire was the neutral and grounded. Since I have 230-volt service, 115 on each side of neutral, I believe that I might have had better luck if I had coupled to the 230-volt circuit, as cancellation might have been more complete. The numerous branch lines leading off the main lines must cause some degree of phase shift and a consequent radiation of the signal. The report of W4NX in November (1942) QST also suggests this to me. Since I can no longer try these things, please pass this along: have someone check the comparative radiation of the two methods of coupling.
In regard to the contacts I have had with W6*** in Glendale, I am now inclined to believe that direct radiation was responsible in some manner. Since checks were made at each end with outside antennas for pick-up, it seems that the senstivity of our receiving equipment is not great enough to receive these signals by direct radiation. When they are connected to the power line, the signal pick-up is stronger, perhaps because the signals tend to follow the power lines." Art Gentry, W6MEP
"Those who don't understand history are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana. 73, AE6RO John
|
| |
|
RE: Wisdom of the Ancients
|
|
|
by QSYING on January 22, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Irrespective of complaints, comments and opinions, a very valid concern is whether or not FCC, when it made a new Part 15 rule (15.611(c)(1)(iii)), exceeded its authority, failed to comply with the law, or both.
If it didn't do either, then fine.
If it did either or both, then the ends do not justify the means. Agencies simply cannot make rulings that exceed their authority or that do not comply with the law.
This issue transcends the BPL interference issue, because (and I am not saying FCC is or is not culpable, because I don't know) if a agency can exceed its authority or violate the law regarding one issue, it can do so regarding other issues.
73,
Bob - KC9JUB
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on January 22, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Interference-generating forms of BPL are a POLITICAL problem, and as such they require a POLITICAL solution".
Mabey you have not heard the news!
arrl has decaired that BPL is a "flawed technology" that "won't work". Since arrl has decided this issue, we, as ordinary, mere-mortal hams, have NOTHING to worry about. BPL is destined to fail. How do I know? arrl has said so.
You DO BELIEVE arrl....now don't you?
|
| |
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W1YW on January 22, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Again, do the math:
---------------------------------
730,000+ licensed Part 97 hams...
ZERO actionable extant complaints against Access BPL...
---------------------------
NOW...
How many complaints do you think there are from other RFI sources...such as plasma TV's?
Where is the BILL TO INVESTIGATE PLASMA TV's?
Makes you think what's behind this, doesn't it?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W1YW on January 22, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You know, another option is to radically change the face of ham radio, so that the extraordinary privileges we now enjoy are tailored directly and restrictively to the Part 97 mission statement.
Get rid of the fluff and you get rid of the bluff and gruff.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W1YW on January 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
At face value, 730,000+ licensed 'hams' sure sounds like a constituency one needs to pay attention to. But, with pertinence to this topic, consider the following:
* A vast majority of licensed hams are believed to be inactive;
* The clear majority of US ham 'contacts' occurs at VHF, with some UHF, with a minority at HF/MF. (Access BPL is at HF/MF) Indeed, even when the 'No Code Techs'--the majority of licensees-- invoke their new HF privileges, only a sliver are at HF on phone, not far from the CB band frequencies (ironically they have LOTS of CW privileges...but if you don't know code in the first place, what is the likelihood of using it?)
* The ARRL has been either unable or unwilling to demonstrate that anything but a very, very few of its members support the suit against the FCC, IMO a strong indicator of just how little play and support the Access BPL issue has with Part 97 licencees;
* Hams do indeed provide backup emergency communications, but there has never been a fact-based EXAMPLE where Access BPL ever impeded EC with hams. Nor reason to believe it would. To wit: if you HAVE Access BPL, and can call 911 over VOIP, then why do you need some ham to assist?
* The number of outstanding actionable Access BPL complaints from fixed Part 97 stations--and keep in mind that there are quite an extensive base of BPL operations now-- appears to be zero, although there are two filings, to my knowledge. Know better? Tell us!
It is important for us all to ask why a very few Part 97 licencees continue to flog Access BPL. What's driving it? What COMMERCIAL INTERESTS are driving it--in the specious name of 'licensee rights (UGH!)' and 'spectrum pollution'?
As a CLASS of licensees, Part 97 may be the largest pool. But if you think ALL hams are stupid enough to be manipulated into a fight that has NOT DEMONSTRATED to have an impact on them, well, think again.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by KF7CG on January 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip,
Here are some questions to further clarify or muddy the analysis as the case may be. No stand either way, just more data refinement. The quality of these arguments depends heavily on the quality of the data. Statistics mean nothing if the sample is corrupt.
How many of the BPL deployments are in antenna restricted neighborhoods? Would you complain about BPL interference if you were already breaking the rules yourself?
How many of the possible complainants are under domestic duress not to make waves? For many of us Ham Radio is a great hobby but is a definite second to family and domestic tranquility.
If it would upset many of your neighbors if you complained about interference would you?
How many Hams can afford the kind of measuring equipment it is implied that you need in order to prove interference? Remember with the last ruling mobile measurements from Hams don't count.
Have these questions been factored into the statistics?
David
KF7CG
|
| |
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W1YW on January 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi David,
None of what you mention is cogent to the issue, IMO.
IF a radio 'ham' undergoes HARMFUL interference, then the FCC rules clearly specify remedies. BTW, I and others do not believe that interference to mobile 'ham' operations generally qualifies.
You certainly do NOT need fancy measuring equipment to demonstrate HARMFUL interference to Part 97 communications (on the rare cases it may exist).... however you should assume the FCC may wish to document it if it exists.
As a rule of thumb, IMO, harmful interference is interference which PREVENTS actual use Part 97 privileges, in executing the Part 97 MISSION.
Hams ALWAYS need to operate legally, and that includes USING THE MINIMUM POWER FOR THE INTENDED communication, and following NEAR-FIELD antenna guidlines for power use nd antenna location. If you are infracting against these or others, then your illegal use of Part 97 should not, IMO, allow you to file an actionable complaint.
Your opinion may differ.
Hope this helps.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W1YW on January 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"How many of the possible complainants are under domestic duress not to make waves? For many of us Ham Radio is a great hobby but is a definite second to family and domestic tranquility."
-------------------------------------
Well, you tell me: how many? Evidence?
|
| |
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W1YW on January 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If it would upset many of your neighbors if you complained about interference would you? "
-----------------------
Of course not.
However, HARMFUL interference to Part 97 is certainly a basis for formal complaint, and as it would be rare that one's neighbors would be hams to start with, it seems essentially irrelevant to that issue (of HI to Part 97) to worry about one's neighbors.
Also, you may have some view that the world is that shown in 'It's a Wonderful Life', but I think that's a tad unrealistic in 2007.
Worry about yourself and your neighbors won't have a reason to worry, if for some reason they are so inclined.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by K5QED on January 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not much in the article to justify our stand against BPL to the public, which ends up as a disservice to our effort in opposing it.
Here's another consideration that was discussed at recent meeting of my local amateur radio club:
Apparently one of the major electric utilities here in Texas has plans to use a BPL-based network for monitoring and control functions for their power-grid infrastructure. This includes functionality such as video surveillance of sub-stations and remote switching.
Not sure if it would be viable for that purpose without offering bandwidth for sale to outside users, but unfortunately this application can be touted on its own merits within the power distibution industry.
Wondering if anyone else has heard of similar plans, or has comments related to the cost effectiveness of such a scheme.
Charles
K5QED
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by K4RAF on January 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Satellite Internet - No Phone Or Cable Service Needed!"
Yea, right... 25% of current WISP customers are DirecWay/HughesNet refugees...
$800 for satellite equipment (lightning means another $800)
$79.99/month for residential "up to 1.5mbps down,
128kbps uplink
$99.99/month for 'business' class at the same "up to 1.5mbps down, up to 256kbps up"
These are asymetrical rates, subject to weather fading. Most of the business refugees we serve were seeing typically 300kbps down, 90kbps up... VoIP, video & pictures are as slow as dialup, if possible at all...
Current Part 15 POP type wireless systems:
>902-928MHz NLOS- Up to 3mbps SYMETRICAL (down & up without throttling), Up to 5-10+ Miles from good site
>2.4GHz LOS - Up to 6mbps SYMETRICAL - Up to 2 Miles Mobile
>5.8GHz LOS or point-to-point - Up to 54mbps SYMETRICAL - up to 25 Miles using tight antennas
If you think there is a wireless stock alert, I suggest Google (Yes, Google...TBA), ClearWire (IPO), Motorola, Alvarion, Proxim, American Tower, Crown Castle, Sprint, AT&T, Verizon Wireless, & PowerWave...
Employ a ham, invest in wireless equipment, infrastructure & "Last Mile" solution providers!
K4RAF
wifidx@gmail.com
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by K4RAF on January 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BTW: Above posted via a 2.2mbps 900MHz NLOS link since I am at work, via a 2.4GHz Linux based Access Point.
It works...
BPL don't...
Get over it...
K4RAF
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by KF7CG on January 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip,
As usual you miss the point. If a Ham has the misfortune of being in an antenna restricted neighborhood, even if his antennas are in his attic or so on, he will raise the ire of the local HOA if they get word that he is on the air. Amazing how word of a complaint could leak out since it is public record.
I have already personally had to deal with the fallout from a telephone repairman telling the neighbors that it was all my fault that my reasonably powered (65 watts pep) signal was being heard on their telephones.
This tended to damage the domestic tranquility because the significant other had to listen to her friends in the neighborhood go on about how inconsiderate I was and that I should just get off the air. If the BPL (power company) people were to mention that they were having problems with the "frivolous" complaints of the local Ham what do you think the results would be?
Had to politely tell the next door neighbor to go ahead and file a complaint with the FCC. He was extremely hostile about sounds coming from his extended stereo speakers when it was off. Again this wasn't helpful on the home front.
Situations such as these give me a very poor feeling about the results of complaints against BPL if they become known to your neighbors. I have been told that they didn't need the "CB" crap and the degenerates that use it in the neighborhood. This was from a clean installation that did not bother my own televisions or stereo.
So the questions are relevant if the Hams in question have the misfortune of living in a "ME" generation neighborhood. If it interferes with theirs it is wrong! If what they do interferes with you, tough excrement.
No its a wonderful life world, just the world of the middle class suburb. Thank goodness my neighbors at the current address are never home, so no problem.
Have to live with satellite everything and a noisy phone but that isn't too much of a price to pay.
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
---------------
Well I never suggested Satellite was "the answer" to BPL. The point I was making is that just about any major competitor offering broadband to market refugees are already offering many "last mile" alternatives for consumers.
Unless the BPL industry start competing and start spending billions to start providing the so called last mile solution, then there will simply be no last mile existing to resolve after these major competitors fill the voids.
It doesn't matter what technology is used to provide the last mile solution. What really matters is the costs, the reliability and the customer.
Direct way already seems to be miles ahead of BPL in this last mile resolution regardless if the speeds are slow at the moment.
At least they are offering the idea that internet connectivity can exist! BPL on the other hand is drowning in costs and STILL doesn't exist in these service areas nor will it ever exist unless billions are invested in a very short amount of time to get it off the ground.
It doesn't look like investors are interested when big dog competitors are already providing simple solutions to this last mile online access problem.
Why would they? Would you? As long as they can download aunt Gladdy's latest recipes and surf American idol.com and the old man can get his work email at home they don't really care what latest wiz bang technology is delivering the internet for them. What matters is that "someone" or "something" is doing it.
BPL cannot even compete with the costs of dial up. All you need is a phone line for that. If your in a rural area without a phone line then I doubt the BPL industry is going to have the money to run any "last mile" cable to your vicinity at a cost of $750,000 just so you can pay them $19.95 a month. Well, that's just not an economic reality unless they can gain several hundred prospective customers in the process.
Duh.. If you don't have phone lines installed for dial up access in your area, then you are likely the only one who is living in an area of how many square miles of other people again exactly?
------------
It works...
BPL don't...
Get over it...
-------------
We seem to agree on that point.
73 de Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by KF7CG on January 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
May I add a little perspective to the BPL thing. From a cost stand point it will have a very difficult time in my suburb/rural area. The housing density is too low for cable. It ends about 1.5 miles away. DSL doesn't cover this area and the houses are generally only on one side of the road and about 150 feet apart.
This means that a single transformer per home or at most two homes per transformer for voltage to the homes. Since it requires a BPL box per transformer to deliver the signal this means an infrastructure cost of one BPL unit for every two houses best case. You can estimate a maximum of about 20 houses every 3000 feet so you have to have a BPL repeater every 20 houses best case and so on. The houses generally have a set back of 300 feet to the homes with about the last 200 feet underground (direct burial wire) and 100 or so feet elevated. Sounds like suppressing the to the home radiation will be a problem if it ever does show up.
BPL will probably never show up here so I won't have to worry, but it could show up down the road in the 5 homes per acre area.
Lived in a similar area in Ohio but was the <<expletive deleted>> interferring Ham in the neighborhood. Homes were wired for telephone using home improvement grade flat 4 wire cable and had know metallic vapor barrier in the wall. Phone access to the home was with two wire parallel rubber covered cable buried about 3 inches into dry soil with average 200 foot telephone runs. As you can imagine everything was an antenna.
This is all to say that BPL in the rural areas is still a joke.
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W6EM on January 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Charles, K5QED said: "Apparently one of the major electric utilities here in Texas has plans to use a BPL-based network for monitoring and control functions for their power-grid infrastructure. This includes functionality such as video surveillance of sub-stations and remote switching.
Not sure if it would be viable for that purpose without offering bandwidth for sale to outside users, but unfortunately this application can be touted on its own merits within the power distibution industry.
Wondering if anyone else has heard of similar plans, or has comments related to the cost effectiveness of such a scheme."
Charles: You have been fed a 'smokescreen' as has the FCC. No, worse than that. An outright misconstruance. In other words, its a LIE.
The electric utility industry has had control over its distribution system via systems called SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) systems for decades. These systems are designed to control, monitor and operate substation equipment and distribution line equipment remotely.
Their pathways are typically, point-to-point 2-way radio. Everything from VHF through microwave. And, in many cases, a packet network. Ocasionally, telephone or utility-owned fiber optic or microwave links. And, VLF power line carrier on long distance transmission lines between substations.
As an example, Southern Company, one of the loud proponents of such desirable BPL attibutes, already uses radio to control its distribution lines. Now, for the reasons why. And, why not BPL.
First, if the means to control a distribution line is carried over the same path (the lines themselves) well, you get the picture. Discontinuity caused by everything from blown fuses to a tree limb dropping the conductor will prevent the BPL signal from getting there to reconfigure the system to restore power. That's why they use radio. And, have battery-back-up for stored energy operators and the radio equipment.
BPL won't be there when the power's out. Oh, and I forgot one big discontinuity: A worker opens a switch and reconfigures the system. Bingo. Was BPL interrupted? Yes, unless its sent in every direction on every possible line. Not really feasible.
Sure, some might say they want to control the customer's meter and shut the customer off or turn them on. Now, to do that, try replacing millions of $20 kiloWatt hour meters with ones costing $1000 each or so. Now, that's really economical, especially when it only costs 10 cents per reading per month per customer!!
Hope this helps, Charles. Any argument that BPL is needed for system control and operation is about as bogus as they come..... Bar none.
And, one last thing, I say RIGHT ON to the guy who said conclusions are worthless when the data is corrupted. Denying the existance of interference complaints as if none existed is gravely inept. Especially at this juncture.
73,
Lee
W6EM/4
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by KT0DD on January 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is off topic, but I must comment on W1YW's comment about "cashing entitlement checks". STOP trying to demonize something you don't like and are paying into because you may not need it! The correct name is Social SECURITY! It was created for a reason and the need for it today is greater than ever! The rich greedy capitalists are always trying to cut something in order to put more money in their pockets at the expense of the working class. They are already shipping all the jobs that pay enough for Americans to live on overseas, and are ignoring the problem with insanely expensive health care,(except for dropping coverage for their workers).
My comment to you is, If big business is unwilling to support Americans and America, let them get out and go to North Korea, China or India, and let new business with some patriotism start up here to take their place!
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W6EM on January 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well said, KT0DD!!
The definition of Entitlement is "any legal obligation of the Federal government." I wonder what those fat rich-cats on Wall Street would think (average salary last year at Goldman Sachs for every employee including secretaries was above $600K) if Uncle Sam stopped paying by far the biggest Entitlement: Interest on the the National Debt.
China would dump so many Treasuries on the market that our currency would lose a significant amount of its value in one fell swoop.
What you just said echos the thoughts of many Americans. That's why we had the first wave of change sweep Washington in November.
Senator Webb's mere 9 minute speech last night said a lot of the same things and was the best I've heard come out of Washington in at least 6 years.
Yes, some of us do need SS benefits. And the retention of the plain, old, secure and risk-free method of assuring a small pension when we retire. Imagine what your self-directed SS benefits would be like if you had purchased the common stock of Enron, KMart, Winn-Dixie Stores, United Airlines, US Air, and Delta Airlines a few years ago? (Virtually nothing).
73,
Lee
W6EM/4
|
| |
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W1YW on January 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think the important thing to remember about amateur radio, even though there still remain some professional radio men and women in it's ranks, is that it has become an 'amateur' activity. That is a huge character change in the last two decades, especially in the last 10 years.
As such, many of us seem to venture far from the knowledge base of Part 97, and take amateur dives into things that have nothing to do with us (vis a vis Part 97):
*legislation not demonstrated to be in the public interest;
* obsession with Part 15;
* attacks upon the business oriented free enterprise system in the US;
* vicious rants against elected officials and the government in general;
*organized witch hunt(s) against (who knows why?) against selected new technologies;
*activist propaganda to thrust through an agenda;
* instantly claimed knowledge on business acumen and technology futures,
* and oh so much more.
What this amounts to is a total disconnect, IMO, from who we REALLY are; what privileges we have and what services we provide for said privileges. It points to a future where this disconnect will only go one way, IMO, which is the dissolution of the ARS, as we know it, in the name of the public interest.
If you don't want that, if you think we DO have value, then understand your obligations--AND LIMITS--under Part 97. When DOING Part 97, CONCERN yourself with Part 97. And if you want to RANT, well, fine! But don't represent yourself as Part 97--be yourself and not misrepresenting the scope and limits of your Part 97 license.
T-H-I-N-K!
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Unfortunately Chip, the innocent days of just throwing up a simple wire antenna and talking to someone 1000 miles away like youngsters did back in 1952 is now riddled with political and legal and government legislative pressure today in 2006.
For example:
* The days of innocently inviting a youngster over to see your ham shack is now plagued with the idea that your neighbors might start thinking you are a sex offender.
* In Pristine cookie cutter village where they hire people to measure the length of each blade of grass on your lawn, throwing up an antenna in your backyard is about as political and the equivalent of jacking a rusted Ford pickup truck on blocks on your front lawn.
* Gladys the neighbor is always looking for a lawsuit opportunity so she doesn't have to work for a living. Her chance for some free litigation money (as seen on TV) in proportion by the radiation field emanating from your antenna. While you see field strength she see's ambulance chasers on TV and develops a sudden onset of health problems.
* Zoning ordinances, neighbor complaints, city legislation, HOA legislation, legislation legislated for other legislation.
See where this is going yet?
That's why hams have recently been forced to become their own advocates in the political" process.
It's no longer enough to just innocently flip on the switch to your transceiver and bury your head in the sand like none of these issues exist.
73 de Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W1YW on January 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If these speculations are truly perceived by SOME hams, then I volunteer to act as an expert witness AGAINST the need for this advocation for political action.
Public please note.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W1YW on January 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here's an interesting question...if the HOA issue on antennas is such a profoundly important issue to the 730,000+ hams, then why haven't the hams solved their problem with technology --or with some personal knowledge in this area--why has the free enterprise system either ignored or abandoned such a ham concern? Why hasn't the marketplace solved it for them?
Is there something about the present 'technical culture' of amateur radio that discourages this, or is it just not worth the while of the techno- business big business baddies (sarcasm intended)?
What new technology has come out of ham radio in the last dcade?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
if the HOA issue on antennas is such a profoundly important issue to the 730,000+ hams, then why haven't the hams solved their problem with technology
-------
Good question and the apparent solution was resolved using an advanced communication technology called Echolink.
In fact this communication technology can not only resolve antenna restrictions but also resolve many other problems including propagation, potential interference from BPL, inadequate antenna systems, the need to increase RF power to maintain communications, reduces the equipment required to establish communications and is cost effective in comparison to operating HF equipment using large antenna arrays.
However, technological advancement in communication is not always universally accepted as a communication solution in the amateur radio community.
In other words, the political side of this acceptance becomes the question, "Should we as hams accept this new voice over IP communication technology as a replacement for our current way of communicating with one another?"
Hence, the beginning of a ongoing controversial and political discussion with individuals representing and expressing different views in the same political arena.
In short.. The stage for Ham radio politics has been set and the politics, just like any other political process has begun. There are critics, advocates, different sides expressing their views, opinionated thoughts, agreement and disagreement, public opinion and individuals seeking your "vote" in principle.
Make no mistake, issues surrounding amateur radio is very much a political matter just like any other socially structured organization in modern day society.
Do I agree with that process or somehow feel it's particularly relevant to the objective surrounding part 97?
No..absolutely not. I hate politics and everyone should just do the right thing in the first place.
Politics Lesson #1: What the above comment doesn't reflect is this. My right thing to do isn't reflected as your right thing to do and so on.
Basically it's because of this reality that we are forced to contend with these issues in a political fashion in the first place. If our intention is to move forward then we must involve others using a social and politically motivated structured process.
I agree it's unfortunate that we can't simply just collectively agree on these matters. However, don't make the mistake of thinking the ARRL is not in fact a political lobbyist activist organization because that's exactly what it has been doing on our behalf for a very long time.
As always Chip, it's very enjoyable to hear your perspective on things.
73 Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W1YW on January 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"However, technological advancement in communication is not always universally accepted as a communication solution in the amateur radio community."
----------------------
Hence one of the more fatal disconnects between the MISSION of Part 97 'amateur radio' and the many self-named 'hobbyist' hams....who expect the world to be fixed for them, rather than bootstrapping the world, like their colleagues did for generations.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W1YW on January 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well Charles, once again people have to understand that you and I are ham radio colleagues, and hardly mad at each other.
We just disagree. And that's AOK.
I do have serious worries about the direction of Part 97. And when the subject comes up with non-ham industry folks, it is alarming to hear their thoughts. Thus I try to re-phrase it in a way to provide a perspective.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W6EM on January 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"As always Chip, it's very enjoyable to hear your perspective on things."
And, also mark that laughable.
Its always interesting to see the "haves" comment about "have nots." Especially when spiced with the spear of desired redaction of opposing points of view that have the impact of a 12 gauge on a tin can.
Amateur radio is an evolving hobby. The old and the new. It doesn't need to invent the next wheel, or a better way to share a loaf of bread to continue.
Besides, as things shrink, the ability of the hand to follow the eye, let alone the brain, becomes ever more difficult. So, we resort to those things we can conceive on the virtual screen and write or draw. Our imagineering, I suppose.
Perhaps we should all take a lesson from the legacy of Apple Computer.
Start off by borrowing first the GUI interface and climing it as your own (borrowed from Xerox). Sue the big name in the business and claim they stole it from you. Next, take the name from a famous record label. Agree not to sell music. Then, well, sell music.
Follow that by borrowing iPhone from Cisco without their permission. Then, as I've heard lately, a touch screen concept owned by LG.
Now, if amateur radio did all that and sold it at a profit, we could proudly say, "we are a corporate success story."
What, we're not capable of becoming that big? Honestly? Better we are what we are than some pink-sheet company trying to stay afloat by suing everybody.
Oh, well, just my two cents.
73, Good DX (Whether by EchoLink, WinLink, PSK31, or just plain old SSB).
Lee
W6EM/4
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by IX4NT on January 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BPL is likely to be the only player in rural America. As others have pointed out, communications providers will not invest in cable, DSL, cellular/PCS or other infrastructure unless the return on investment provides a payback or the costs are offset by immediate construction charges to the benefitted customers.
Satellite internet is OK, but remember, the downlink (ISP to subscriber is via satellite and at high speed). There is no uplink. The subscriber to ISP link usually is dial up. That's all that's needed for mouse and keyboard data, but file uploads are dead slow. For two-way satellite internet, not only is it cost prohibitive, but one needs to license an Earth station or VSAT. Also, while the TCA'96 affords protection to residents who use a <1M diameter dish for 'over the air broadcast' reception, that protection does not apply to non-broadcast reception or transmit dishes.
Here's where we see BPL's greatest potential (other than for an electric utility to control its own infrastructure) -- referred to generally as 'access BPL'. First, in areas where other providers will not make an investment. Second, in lower-income, densely populated residential settings such as high-rise apartments. Third, as a competitve alternative for condo associations, co-op associations and even HOAs to offer their members. Since adoption of the Cable TV Act in 1994, all rates other than basic cable service, were deregulated. Rates for non-regulated services have more than doubled nationwide. Competition is good.
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by KF7CG on January 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
IX4NT,
Nice regurgitation of PR Data. Several of the unmentioned problems with BPL is the cost of the MV to home line boxes. These are required at the rate of about one for every two homes. It takes an access box to couple around the transformer used to drop the MV distribution voltage to the voltage used in homes. In rural areas there are only one to two homes per transformer, very often only one. Compare this to 6 to 10 homes per transformer in the suburbs. Next BPL requires a repeater about twice as often as cable or about once per half mile. This makes getting the signal out to the rural homes expensive. All in all BPL will be used in small communities that don't like their current cable operator of DSL provider. It can and will be costly to hit rural areas.
Secondly, rural areas generally do not have as restrictive covenants as suburbs, cities.
Thirdly, you can have for a not too expensive price. Two way satellite broadband with download speeds that exceed basic DSL and upload speeds that at least match it. This is with a less than 1 meter dish. More per month and a 1 meter dish will increase you speed in both directions and still stay within the FCC pre-emptions. The licensing is handled by the satellite service provider and you have nothing to do in that regard. Just have the provider install and commission then use. I have such a set up now and the only draw back it has is that the communications latency prevents my children from playing on-line games (I call that a blessing in disquise.).
And last by not having access BPL in my rural area, I don't have a potential source of interference. By the way though everybody complains about interference to Ham Radio, the interference from Ham Radio to BPL can be quite a problem.
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W6EM on January 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
IX4NT Said:"BPL is likely to be the only player in rural America. As others have pointed out, communications providers will not invest in cable, DSL, cellular/PCS or other infrastructure unless the return on investment provides a payback or the costs are offset by immediate construction charges to the benefitted customers."
Pehaps what you say is true in Italy. Not here.
I live in rural America. My service provider installed a spot-DSL system to serve a dozen houses.
Wi-MAx (TM) is also going to be available shortly.
And, no, we don't have cable.
"Satellite internet is OK, but remember, the downlink (ISP to subscriber is via satellite and at high speed). There is no uplink. The subscriber to ISP link usually is dial up. That's all that's needed for mouse and keyboard data, but file uploads are dead slow. For two-way satellite internet, not only is it cost prohibitive, but one needs to license an Earth station or VSAT. Also, while the TCA'96 affords protection to residents who use a <1M diameter dish for 'over the air broadcast' reception, that protection does not apply to non-broadcast reception or transmit dishes."
Wrong again. Perhaps HughesNet isn't available yet in Italy. Here, with a small dish, Hughes offers two-way, high speed satellite internet service. No land line connection required. Like there ad says: "high-speed internet service available, anytime, anywhere."
"Here's where we see BPL's greatest potential (other than for an electric utility to control its own infrastructure) -- referred to generally as 'access BPL'. First, in areas where other providers will not make an investment. Second, in lower-income, densely populated residential settings such as high-rise apartments. Third, as a competitve alternative for condo associations, co-op associations and even HOAs to offer their members. Since adoption of the Cable TV Act in 1994, all rates other than basic cable service, were deregulated. Rates for non-regulated services have more than doubled nationwide. Competition is good."
Home owner associations and co-ops already make deals with cable providers. Done all the time. Perhaps even Hughes Net, but, I'm not sure on that one. As my simple personal example pointed out, telco providers ARE willing to put in spot DSL provided enough people agree to subscribe.
Now, for your "greatest potential:" utility control of its infrastructure. You are definitely NOT knowledgeable in utility system control and operation. If you were, you'd know that is a completely fabricated and baseless claim. Read my earlier explanation with respect to SCADA systems employed to control and operate utility systems.
But, then again, with your call sign and the assumption that you reside in Italy, perhaps there, utilities do not have any distribution control system. Perhaps you should suggest that your local utility contact Siemens Power Systems (over the Alps in Germany) and ask them about SCADA and the benefits to its use on utility distribution networks using point to point or packet radio for each node.
73,
Lee
W6EM/4
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by IX4NT on January 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BPL is likely to be the only player in rural America. As others have pointed out, communications providers will not invest in cable, DSL, cellular/PCS or other infrastructure unless the return on investment provides a payback or the costs are offset by immediate construction charges to the benefitted customers.
Satellite internet is OK, but remember, the downlink (ISP to subscriber is via satellite and at high speed). There is no uplink. The subscriber to ISP link usually is dial up. That's all that's needed for mouse and keyboard data, but file uploads are dead slow. For two-way satellite internet, not only is it cost prohibitive, but one needs to license an Earth station or VSAT. Also, while the TCA'96 affords protection to residents who use a <1M diameter dish for 'over the air broadcast' reception, that protection does not apply to non-broadcast reception or transmit dishes.
Here's where we see BPL's greatest potential (other than for an electric utility to control its own infrastructure) -- referred to generally as 'access BPL'. First, in areas where other providers will not make an investment. Second, in lower-income, densely populated residential settings such as high-rise apartments. Third, as a competitve alternative for condo associations, co-op associations and even HOAs to offer their members. Since adoption of the Cable TV Act in 1994, all rates other than basic cable service, were deregulated. Rates for non-regulated services have more than doubled nationwide. Competition is good.
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W6EM on January 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess you sounded a bit like a troll. To be as misinformed as you were/are. Well, I should have known. You just proved that you are one.
And, with probably a bogus call to boot. Oh, well.
End of discussion.
|
| |
|
Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W1YW on January 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"BPL is likely to be the only player in rural America. As others have pointed out, communications providers will not invest in cable, DSL, cellular/PCS or other infrastructure unless the return on investment provides a payback or the costs are offset by immediate construction charges to the benefitted customers.
Satellite internet is OK, but remember, the downlink (ISP to subscriber is via satellite and at high speed). There is no uplink. The subscriber to ISP link usually is dial up. That's all that's needed for mouse and keyboard data, but file uploads are dead slow. For two-way satellite internet, not only is it cost prohibitive, but one needs to license an Earth station or VSAT. Also, while the TCA'96 affords protection to residents who use a <1M diameter dish for 'over the air broadcast' reception, that protection does not apply to non-broadcast reception or transmit dishes.
Here's where we see BPL's greatest potential (other than for an electric utility to control its own infrastructure) -- referred to generally as 'access BPL'. First, in areas where other providers will not make an investment. Second, in lower-income, densely populated residential settings such as high-rise apartments. Third, as a competitve alternative for condo associations, co-op associations and even HOAs to offer their members. Since adoption of the Cable TV Act in 1994, all rates other than basic cable service, were deregulated. Rates for non-regulated services have more than doubled nationwide. Competition is good. "
--------------------------------------
A pretty fair assessment. Refreshing to see something a bit more realistic rgarding this topic.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Puts BPL in Ham's Way:
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on January 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
IX4NT writes:
"BPL is likely to be the only player in rural America".
Didn't you hear the news, my friend?
arrl has pronounced that BPL is a "flawed technology" that "won't work". Now, you DO believe arrl, now don't you? How can BPL be a "player" if it is flawed and won't work?
Surely you do not think that the likes of Motorola, IBM & Matshusta know more about these things then the all-knowing, all-powerful and all-influential arrl, now do you?
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Flag Display Bill Signed
Teens Taunt Police with Pilfered Radios
Electric Blanket Interference
Washing Machine RFI Cured
Licensed Intruders
Other News Articles
Eagle Radio Ham Honored for Long Service:
Bright Spot -- Ray Grob NN8R:
K6VVA's FCC Petition For Rulemaking (Identity Protection):
Indonesia To Launch Orari Satellite Next Year:
Radio Enthusiasts Help Red Cross During Games:
|
|
|
