How can you say we are winning on the technical ground?
All I've heard is complaining about interference. Certainly, I am on the
bandwagon to squash BPL from the interference standpoint. But, it sure is
Pollyanna sweet in its simplicity for last mile broadband connectivity. Our
complaint is that the well designed receivers we currently use would surely
pick up the hash as we seek to work the weak DX stations on HF. Let's
review FCC's technical data on the BPL tests and also hear from hams who are
a part of this testing (hopefully FCC was clever enough to include our
brethren). Are BPL interference filtering techniques being worked on?
DSL and Cable providers are adequately blanketing urban and most suburban
areas because the population density allows greater use of bandwidth with
minimal backhaul investment, but to maximize profitability they limit
available bandwidth to the user. Download and gaming speeds suffer. The
other option for "last mile" broadband service is wireless, and it is
hurting. Wireless technology with IEEE 802.11 license excempt WiFi has
created engineering problems for those Wireless Internet Service Providers
(WISPs) who are attempting to deploy the only available alternative. There
are thousands of WISPs out there. Interference among WISPs is creating
quality of service problems. Most WISP operations are now identified as
"hot spots" in the 2.4 GHz region. USA WISPs also use 900 MHz and 5 GHz
spectrum. Other countries use 3.5 GHz spectrum in addition. You can find
them with a spectrum analyzer. FCC is scrambling to provide more
frequencies to allow WISPs to deploy more favorable longer reach
alternatives to the WiFi approach. Releasing 700 MHz unused TV channels and
opening up 3.5 GHz spectrum are also on their agenda.
IEEE 802.16-2004 license excempt (WiMAX), using authorized portions of 2-11
GHz spectrum, is still not deployed because the chip isn't available until
next year. Problem with this is the backhaul engineering and deployment
required up front. It's like starting your own telephone company. There is
federal funding out there for those who want to use wireless to provide
service in rural "last mile" communities, but how many startups are capable
of sifting through the federal red tape to make it happen?
Catch 22 in wireless broadband design has to do with Non-line-of-site (NLOS)
vs line-of-site (LOS), dB loss in the atmosphere caused by use of higher
frequencies, tower restrictions, and public abhorance to ugly antennas.
Find the elegant alternative to BPL and the battle can be made more robust.
Food for thought......"your reasoning is excellent - it's only your basic
assumptions that are wrong." (Anon.)
73,
Pete
W0RTT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Notarius" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Great BPL Article
> No, let's not stoop to that level.
>
> Remember the Klingon proverb: Revenge is a dish best served cold. So
let's
> keep our tempers in check, no matter how much we are provoked, and look at
> this logically.
>
> By changing tactics -- that is, by trying to attack our credibility and
> technical expertise, rather than answer the charges that QRM from Access
BPL
> & other similar systems currently under testing or development, is not
only
> unacceptable to communications users but technically unavoidable -- the
BPL
> industry is in effect conceeding that our concerns and complaints are
valid
> and have merit.
>
> Since they can't argue the facts with us, or prove us wrong, they have now
> chosen to try and mitigate our concerns by belittling us. In other words,
> if they can negate our voices by convincing those in authority that we are
> out of step with the times and don't know what we're talking about. By
> logical extension, if it works, this means that those in authority will
> ignore us or brush us aside with further regard for our concerns.
>
> If we can be ignored as the minority old far... fogies, they can do as
they
> please.
>
> And remember, ultimately, they only have to convince 3 people of this. 3
of
> the 5 FCC commisioners. At least 2 of whom have made public statements to
> wit that they are already on the BPL bandwagon.
>
> The real insult is the broad brush stereotyping all amateurs as being out
of
> step. How many thousands of US amateurs (let alone the rest of the world)
> are broadcast engineers, engineers of any sort, scientists, developers,
> doctors... and on and on... all of whom have the technical background to
> understand and logically discuss the issues, and prove them wrong? But
no,
> we're all stuck in the vacumn tube era?
>
> Feh.
>
> We must really have someone worried for them to come out with this tactic
in
> public already.
>
> Bottom line: We're winning on the technical grounds... but they've
shifted
> the battle to the PR grounds, and they have money and a good bit of the
> media on their side.
>
> 73, ron wn3vaw
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:27:59 -0500
> > From: "Paul Gentry" <Paul@k9pg.com>
> > Subject: [CQ-Contest] Great BPL Article
> > To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> > Message-ID: <000a01c45af2$eb067170$0201a8c0@K9PG7>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> >
> >
>
http://www.uplc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=true&cbr_eid=25276&p=admin&ct=contentbrowser
> >
> > How informative... I sure didn't know that all the Kenwood, Yaesu, Icon
> and
> > TenTec rigs still used vacuum tubes!
> >
> > Everyone reading this, be sure to send an email to mary.patterson at
> > wtc.org, their Media Relations person, and let her know what you think.
> >
> >
> > BPL must die a quick, painful and agonizing death
> >
> > K9PG
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|