[TowerTalk] BPL: Presidential Backing

[tongaloa]

Dave Bernstein wrote:

>There is nothing we do in HF that can't be done more effectively with
>more modern technologies. 
>
This argument applies to BPL! HF for broadband is a crazy idea. Already 
we have
NTIA recommending set aside frequencies for govt users and a web 
interface for
interference management by other spectrum users. Does this make BPL look 
like
an attractive solution to someone considering an investment?

>The "BPL is bad because it interferes with HF
>radio" argument makes us out as aging impediments to progress; 
>
Perhaps if "HF radio" means nothing more than a bunch of old farts 
talkign on the radio...
But, 'BPL is bad because it interferes with HF' is THE argument.
It's not just about 'hobby hams'. It's about destroying a resource for 
which there is no
alternative. Radio astronomy including neutrino showers, upper 
atmosphere wind studies,
meteor studies, long distance emergency communications, radio 
navigation, and these are just
off the top of my head. Yes, amateur radio comes into play. Hams are a 
resource that is available
if needed. without access to the spectrum, there will be no hams 
familiar with HF comms when
BPL is 'turned off' because HF comms are needed.

>its
>equivalent to the antique car hobbyists arguing for 25 mph speed limits
>on the interstates so they can continue to enjoy their Sunday drives.
>The "ham radio is a vital means of introducing our youth to technology"
>argument is also lame. Radio is indeed critical to ongoing technical
>innovation, but not at the HF end of the spectrum. To extend the
>previous analogy, not too many kids get into aeronautics these days by
>working on their Uncle's Model A. 
>  
>
I can direct you to a professor at Ga Tech who will argue this one with 
you. With rare
exception the ONLY kids who are able understand how things work are the 
kids who
tinker. His job, in addition to EE professor, is motivating secondary 
school kids with
an interest in technology and science! No, he's not an 'old fart!

>Universal high-speed internet connectivity is vital to our progress in
>multiple dimensions, from health care to productivity to human
>interaction. Its also a huge business opportunity for a telecom industry
>that executed poorly during the last business cycle. BPL is a
>technically flawed approach, but the "last mile" problem is a serious
>impediment. BPL's exploitation of "existing wiring" generates broad
>appeal and interest, making it all-too-easy to assume that the technical
>problems can be overcome. It's a bandwagon no politician and few CEOs
>can resist.
>
>  
>
The economics of wiring are not a major impediment. The cable TV 
companies did fine without
existing wiring. The phone companies did fine without existing wiring. 
Adding fiber for last
mile offers a huge increase in bandwidth. BPL doesn't.

>We will not stop BPL by invoking "spectrum preservation" or "what about
>the kids?" arguments; attempting to regulate a promising technology to
>death is futile. The only way to stop it is by providing an alternative
>that is technically, logistically, and economically superior  -- one
>that beats BPL in the marketplace. That alternative, of course, is
>radio. We don't just need high-speed connectivity in our homes, we need
>it wherever we happen to be. BPL will not address this need. 
>
>  
>
I agree with you here. Look at a company called Flarion and deployment 
in Raleigh Durham
area. 3mbps to cell phone users. It's wonderful! Service is 
competitively priced with current
CDMA-2000 offerings of SPRINT and Verizon.

Radio makes more sense for the last mile because any company deploying 
has an opportunity
to capture mobile users too. There is a small company in Hawaii working 
in this direction
with mesh networks.

>The challenge is obvious, and hams are in a great position to be part of
>the solution. Its won't be a quick fix, but few good things rarely
>are...
>
>     73,
>
>         Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
>  
>