Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
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

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Answer to BPL worries  (Read 226 times)
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9296


WWW

Ignore
« on: August 17, 2004, 09:37:40 PM »

Here we go. A workable system that will not wipe out HF like HF BPL will!!!

http://www.corridor.biz/news.htm  

Let's get behind these people!! Let's get the FCC behind this technology.

73 Tom
Logged
N6AJR
Member

Posts: 9908




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2004, 10:12:15 PM »

lets not, there is dial up, dsl, satalite and cable .. thats enough for me...
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20595




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2004, 10:32:18 PM »

BPL is a solution looking for a problem.  In reality, there is no problem that BPL solves.

When I can visit the rim of the Grand Canyon, where there is absolutely no cell phone or PCS service, there's no cable TV, and the local population is close to zero for many miles in all directions, and still access the internet with a high-speed connection via my 18" satellite dish on the RV and its modem, I know for sure there isn't a problem.  And I just did that for several days, last month.

WB2WIK/6

Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6034




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2004, 12:22:46 AM »

There is a problem that BPL solves--Mr. Bush and company's problem of how to look like they're fulfilling one of their promises, getting high speed internet to everyone.  The problem is what he is doing to us and other radio spectrum users while he is doing so.

So, in short, it does solve his problem but provides us with a lot of problems.
Logged
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9296


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2004, 06:05:54 AM »

What kind of replies are those? People better think before inserting foot in mouth.

We are going to get some system crammed down our throats by the administration and FCC.

The system link I posted does not use HF, it uses the power line as a waveguide for GHz frequency range. If Hams, many of whom who obviously would rather shoot all of us in the foot, would spend some time promoting that technology the administration and FCC would have a way out of the present mindset. If we don't offer an alternative technology, those of us who operate HF are screwed.

73 Tom
Logged
AC5E
Member

Posts: 3585




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2004, 08:08:56 AM »

Tom's right, we do need to push this and all the viable alternatives to BPL.

And the Bush bashing has no place in this debate. All it does is alienate possible friends and supporters and substantially weaken our case.

Bluntly, this Administration did not invent this idiocy. It was presented and sold to them as a possible solution to a perceived problem. By one of the very same big money types who perusaded the last administration to ship twelve million manufacturing and support jobs to Asia.

So we need to keep our politics under wraps and argue the facts, not the BS.

73  Pete Allen  AC5E
Logged
K0RFD
Member

Posts: 1368




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2004, 10:56:04 AM »

Tom's absolutely right.

FCC sees BPL as competition for cable and DSL, and you can't replace something with nothing.  We need to get behind a viable and reasonable alternative.
Logged
W7DJM
Member

Posts: 1




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2004, 11:29:23 AM »

JI, as informed as you seem to be on many things, I must completely disagree on you with this.

It's just my feeling that squirting ANY amount of RF at just about ANY frequency down a poorly constructed transmission line is damn poor, period.

Seems to me, that no matter what frequency band(s) someone wants to use "on power lines" it will overlap with someone, somewhere, and if not now, in the near future.

It also seems to me that with the inevitable "dirty hardware" problems that have, do, and will, plague power lines, that we have a perfect setup for mixing incredible combinations of rf products, here.

Stuck as I am in a "downtown" neighborhood, I certainly don't need anything else to raise the noise floor.  160/75 meters is bad enough, now.
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20595




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2004, 12:24:16 PM »

Tom, you're getting cranky.

My response is exactly what I've written to my representatives in Washington and to the FCC, on several occasions, in different ways: BPL, while already authorized for use, is still a solution looking for a problem.  Hopefully it will fail by bad marketing, but in any case it's a science experiment gone bad.

I continue to point out every time I can that the perceived problem of broadband access in remote places is a misperception.  It's just not true.  I've been to the most remote boonies in America and could get broadband access (wireless) anywhere I went, including in campgrounds so remote that the locals didn't know they were there.

Unless BPL will be offered free of cost to users, it's not going to beat existing technology which continues to improve without BPL.  

Another point is: It's nonsensical to install, at great cost, systems that will have such small potential payback because their only prospective users represent maybe 5% of our population.  Nobody in L.A. wants or needs BPL, we already have low-cost multiple broadband access means, and everybody who wants it, has it.  Ditto in every metropolitan area in the country, and most suburban and semi-rural areas.

I do hear about "TVI" from rural folks, pretty often.  When I question them, it turns out they're usually trying to receive OTA signals using a private TV antenna; when I question that, they claim to not have any other way to watch TV.  When I point out that, on their block in their neighborhood, the TV satellite footprint is perfect and all they'd need is an 18" dish and $39.95 a month to watch 100 channels of interference-free TV, their response is they don't want to pay the $39.95 a month.

Do you think these same people will pay for BPL access?  Har, har.

That's the point I try to drive home to my representatives...

WB2WIK/6
Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2403




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2004, 09:28:22 AM »

As someone who teaches college courses involving the ethics of technology, I think it's unreasonable to expect that opponents and potential victims of a bad technology need to be burdened with originating alternatives.  However, where such alternatives exist (as they clearly do in this case), it doesn't hurt to point them out to politicians.  

73 de Chuck  NI0C
 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!