Re: [CQ-Contest] OT: BPL news

[Jim George <n3bb@mindspring.com>]

At 09:01 AM 12/16/2004 -0500, Jim Idelson wrote:
> See http://www.arrl.org/ for a new story on BPL. In this case, big-time ISP
> Earthlink has stated to Michael Powell and the FCC that BPL isn't going to be
> cost-effective as a last-mile delivery mechanism. Those of us who have always
> believed that BPL is doomed to succumb to it's own limitations should be
> pleased to hear this kind of statement. But, this news shouldn't give us 
> reason
> to reduce our efforts to ensure that the risks and problems of BPL are dealt
> with. We need to continue to hammer away at exposing the weaknesses of the
> technology and the interference issues. Although the deployment of BPL 
> probably
> won't be stopped in its tracks, those who consider deploying it will proceed
> slower if they must deal with the legitimate objections and barriers being
> raised.
>
>
> Jim Idelson K1IR
> email    k1ir at designet.com
> web    http://www.designet.com/k1ir



I attended an interesting conference regarding wireless communications this 
past month.  It was sponsored by the WNCG (Wireless Networking 
Communications Group) at UT.  Our CTDXCC club member Ted, N9NB, a good 
friend of mine, is the Director of WNCG and is a faculty member at UT.  I 
wanted to relay a conversation I had at a conference reception.

One of the panel members and active participants at the conference was Ed 
Thomas, who is the Chief Engineer of the FCC in Washington, DC.  Ed is 61 
years old and extremely vigorous and active.  He holds an amateur radio 
license, W2ZES as I recall, but is not active on the air.  Ed formerly was 
CTO of ATT and after that was CEO of two companies.  He has had a lot of 
practical experience and is quite sharp technically as well.  He holds a 
PhD as well an MBA.  I had the opportunity to have a long (almost two beers 
in length) one on one conversation with Ed on the subject of BPL.

He agreed with me that BPL offers no advantages over either cable or DSL or 
satellite in terms of delivering TV into the home.  In addition, BPL is 
starting out five years behind the competing services.  Ed also agreed with 
me that BPL would not be able to keep up with future new developments in 
wireless.  Further he agreed that it made no economic sense to talk about 
BPL as a means to provide rural service to farmers and people who live way 
our in the boonies as that would be uneconomical to do for the power 
companies to do.  Ed made the comment that politicians made those claims 
and the technical staff at the FCC simply had to accept some political 
posturing on both sides.  He went on to say that he felt the main long term 
potential for BPL lies in the "machine to machine" area.  As an example, he 
cited communications with controllers between home appliances and systems 
controlling the home from consumers who are at the office or on their way 
home in a car or on mass transit.  He also went on to say that things like 
traffic lights could be part of a communications system that could link 
with and connect other machines and controllers.  The fact that literally 
every home and office and building and business in the world is connected 
by electrical wires makes a BPL network have tremendous potential in his 
opinion.  He feels the long term potential of BPL lies in other areas from 
the delivery of TV, although that is feasible and some of that will happen 
as well.

So the conversation turned to interference, and the potential of damage to 
amateur radio.  Ed was really forceful, the word vociferous almost could 
apply here, that the FCC would tolerate no interference to licensed 
services including but not limited to amateur radio.  He said a procedure 
was in place, and that the BPL companies were able to notch out frequency 
bands, and that the BPL companies would be shut down if they persisted in 
interfering.  I prodded him that it would be impossible once they got up 
and going, but he stated repeatedly that the wording in the law was clear 
and iron clad that they must clear up offending interference!

Ed was, of course completely aware of all the ARRL points, and indicated he 
talks with Dave Sumner frequently about BPL.  Ed understands the ARRL 
position from both a technical as well as a political point of view.  This 
summary provides only a brief outline of the conversation, however I felt 
fortunate to be able to "corner" a person of such knowledge and position 
for such a lengthy conversation on a controversial topic like BPL.

Jim George N3BB







_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest