----- Original Message -----
From: "Grillo's" <ah3c@frii.com>
To: "Ron Notarius" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 5:44 AM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] BPL vs other broadband solutions
> 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?
>
In principle notching is possible, and in fact, I think it has
already been implemented in some places. It is not a
perfect solution, however. It is my understanding that it only
provides about 30dB of attenuation, which means it will still
raise your noise floor significantly if your antennas are
close to the power lines (how many hams have antennas
who aren't close to power lines). And this all assumes that
enforcement and response to enforcement will be swift.
Anyone who has dealt with power line noise knows that it
can literally take years to get these sorts of problems
resolved. And even now with all the regulatory scrutiny
this debate is generating, the track record for interference
resolution in the test areas has been mixed.
Also, I am not convinced that BPL is all that it's cranked
up to be. The power lines are a single very noise pipe
with limited bandwidth. Even if they get 7 bits/Hz spectral
efficiency as claimed by some, how is it that they are
going to compete with DSL and cable. DSL is a separate
small high SNR pipe to each subscriber, and cable is a
single big high SNR pipe that passes each subscriber. BPL
is a single moderate size low SNR pipe that passes each
subscriber. I just can't imagine how a system that is
equivalent to a noisey cable system with 20 MHz of
working bandwidth can provide decent performance
when it gets loaded with enough subscribers to generate
a return on investment.
Are there any BPL systems that are thriving elsewhere
in the world and generating return on investment? All the
ones I keep hearing about in Europe have technical
problems and are failing. Heck, you can crash these things
with 20 watts of RF.
Also, BPL is not a zero capital investment solution. You
have to install all kinds of pole equipment to make it
work. That is why I am dubious that it will ever reach rural
America as touted. All the test sites are in highly populated
areas. Who is going to install all that pole hardware (repeaters,
transformer bypasses) in a long power line run in order to
generate such a small income stream.
In any case, if you want first hand accounts of data from the
test sites, subscribe to the BPL reflector:
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BPLandHamRadio/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
BPLandHamRadio-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
73 de Mike, W4EF.................................
> 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=contentbrows
er
> > >
> > > 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
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|