BPL strikes another win ...
 

Owen Duffy wrote:
Cecil, for all your claimed IQ, you are just offensive... Owen

Any psychologist will tell you that, for whatever reason,
you are exercising your right to choose to be offended.
I certainly did not intend to offend anyone.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

BPL strikes another win ...
 

John Smith I wrote:
http://www.redherring.com/Home/22562

JS

Golly....I'm unwilling to read through a litany of knee-jerk responses;
did anybody notice that this BPL deployment is Current Communications?
And, does anybody know that they utilize 30 -50 MHz on the overhead
segments and the HomePlug protocol on the LV segments (Homeplug notches
the Amateur bands).

In Ohio, Current passes 10,000 homes and NOT ONE HAM COMPLAINT. Why is
this? Simple. Not in our backyard.

And don't tell me I don't know about this - I stood toe-to-toe with
Progress Energy engineers in NC prior to the FCC 04-37 ruling; measured,
wrote and got dirty in the process.

Where was everybody else?

BPL can be deployed outside the Amateur Bands without insult within our
allocations.

73,

Tom N4TAB

BPL strikes another win ...
 

Cecil Moore writes:

Actually, with nested well-behaved newsreader
software doing the attributions, one doesn't
have to worry at all about such.

If I hadn't removed what Owen said, there wouldn't have been a
problem. But I accidentally left "Owen said", but not *what* Owen
said. Hence the confusion.

73
LA4RT Jon

BPL strikes another win ...
 

Jon Kåre Hellan wrote:
Cecil Moore writes:
Actually, with nested well-behaved newsreader
software doing the attributions, one doesn't
have to worry at all about such.

If I hadn't removed what Owen said, there wouldn't have been a
problem. But I accidentally left "Owen said", but not *what* Owen
said. Hence the confusion.

I haven't seen the posting but my point is that with
a well-behaved newsreader, there is no problem and no
confusion except in the minds of the uninitiated. If
we see the following: " Jon Kåre Hellan wrote:" and
there is nothing starting with "", then we know that
what you said has been trimmed and your attribution line
has been accidentally left intact. There's really no
problem and no confusion among the knowledgeable posters
and education might be a better solution than an apology.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

BPL strikes another win ...
 

On Aug 21, 10:39 pm, Tom Brown wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
http://www.redherring.com/Home/22562

JS

Golly....I'm unwilling to read through a litany of knee-jerk responses;
did anybody notice that this BPL deployment is Current Communications?
And, does anybody know that they utilize 30 -50 MHz on the overhead
segments and the HomePlug protocol on the LV segments (Homeplug notches
the Amateur bands).

In Ohio, Current passes 10,000 homes and NOT ONE HAM COMPLAINT. Why is
this? Simple. Not in our backyard.

No surprise there. How many active hams live in that particular BPL
service area? Cincinnati . . . ? .

And don't tell me I don't know about this - I stood toe-to-toe with
Progress Energy engineers in NC prior to the FCC 04-37 ruling; measured,
wrote and got dirty in the process.

Where was everybody else?

In Emmaus PA with my trusty 'ole TS-50S mobile HF xcvr. With Ed Hare
W1RFI, Carl WK3C and with Bob W3HJ and his beacoup kilobucks (HP?
Tek?) spectrum analyzer. Which very graphically and chillingly
illustrated how the OFDM BPL in that neighborhood was completely
trashing most of the HF ham bands I'd previously tuned with the TS50.
Talk about 599 crap . . !

BPL can be deployed outside the Amateur Bands without insult within our
allocations.

Have you ever heard about what happens when you let the camel "just
poke his nose into the tent"?

73,

Tom N4TAB

w3rv

BPL strikes another win ...
 

Jim Lux wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Dave Oldridge wrote:

Algorithms will only help you by slowing down and using redundancy or
by being frequency agile and thereby clearng off my frequency. And
NO equipment DESIGNED to be a sensitive receiver at the frequencies
you want to use will be immune to even stronger signals picked up by
the open ANTENNA that you're using for a "transmission cable."



Good point, Dave. Any error correction comes with the expense of
time, and of course slows down the transmission of the data. The
packet doesn't jibe, so it is asked for again, and again, and so on.
Better be a heck of a algorithim when the interfering signal is really
strong as to swamp the modem's reciever.

This is only true if you're doing a ARQ type protocol. If you're
expecting interference (and BPL certainly is), a Forward Error
Correction type strategy would be a much better bet. For instance, ECC
memory uses a rate 8/11 code (3 syndrome bits for 8 databits) to correct
any single bit error and detect double bit errors. For BPL, one would
probably choose some form of multiple carrier encoding (since
interferers are likely to be narrow band) with some form of interleaving
(since interferers are bursty), and a fairly robust code.


Are you talking about OFDM?


The whole art and engineering of communication link design comes from
selecting that tradeoff between redundancy and reliability. Do you send
twice as many bits, twice as fast, to get an overall lower data rate
(e.g. a rate 1/2 code).


There are plenty of examples to the contrary of the digital signal
as robust entity. Experiments have been made in which a 5 watt signal
in a car with a mobile antenna will knock out nearby BPL signals. 100
watts in a car will do even more damage, and a base station yet more.
Other experiments have shown the so called notches being abandoned
after the system was unable to send good packets. Kind of like it was
getting desperate almost.

But this is merely an example of a specific bad implementation of BPL.
There's no physics reason why one couldn't make it work (whether it's
cost effective is another story).

Sure! They could start running our power into the house through coax! ;^)



Seeing as how qrp levels into inefficient antennas can cause
problems, I have to wonder what will happen during the next sunspot max.

The signal level received via ionospheric paths are so low, that the BPL
receiver isn't going to have any trouble regardless of how good
propagation is. OTOH, the interference radiated by BPL will spread that
much wider.

Has asny testing been done on the level of signal needed to start
affecting a BPL type signal? So far, we've gotten the stories like I've
given above, which are practical if anecdotal.



The whole BPL affair makes me kind of wonder why shielding was
invented.

And for what? a DSL speed "broadband" digital signal? BPL is a
poor solution to the problems of ten years ago. It is the 8-track of
broadband access.

But it if it provides access to capital markets for the relatively small
number of people working in the BPL industry, so they can get paid their
salaries and bonuses, then it's a good thing for them.

Sounds like a plausible rationale for the crystal meth industry, too!



It doesn't actually have to *work* to succesfully employ hundreds of
people and get dozens of people a big bonus. Sure, eventually, it will
fall by the wayside and be abandoned, and all those BPL toilers will go
on to a new technology or job. I'm sure there were folks who made a lot
of money on Betamax cassette design and manufacturing too. (or 8 tracks,
for that matter)

Since we're wearing our cynic hats today, let me toss in a theory of my
own here.

BPL, being a "last mile" system, requires that there be fiber run
almost the whole way to peoples houses. This means that unless you are
the last person or service group on the line, there is a very good
chance that fiber will be running right past your house. Signal off THAT
is what you really want. Fast, reliable, doesn't suffer from that
electrically noisy cracked insulator that the neighbor's kid shot with
his pellet gun, etc. You won't have to worry about that isolator failing
and sending lots more volts than you are paying for into the house
(likely just going to blow the device apart - but are you willing to bet
the farm on that?

At any rate, anyone give thoughts to this being just a way to get the
public utilities to run more fiber, then at a later date, take it over
commercially and service the rest of us with that?

Pure speculation that.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

BPL strikes another win ...
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jon Kåre Hellan wrote:
Cecil Moore writes:
Actually, with nested well-behaved newsreader
software doing the attributions, one doesn't
have to worry at all about such.

If I hadn't removed what Owen said, there wouldn't have been a
problem. But I accidentally left "Owen said", but not *what* Owen
said. Hence the confusion.

I haven't seen the posting but my point is that with
a well-behaved newsreader, there is no problem and no
confusion except in the minds of the uninitiated. If
we see the following: " Jon Kåre Hellan wrote:" and
there is nothing starting with "", then we know that
what you said has been trimmed and your attribution line
has been accidentally left intact. There's really no
problem and no confusion among the knowledgeable posters
and education might be a better solution than an apology.


Good heavens guys!

Jon just made a little joke in response to my little joke about the
oversensitivity of some people to silly things such as BPL signals on
electric blankets

Instead we have our esteemed members showing their own version of
oversensitivity. No new age accoutrement needed

It was a joke followed by a joke. Everyone stand back, take a deep
breath, skip that fifth cup of espresso, and please accept me appy lolly
gees for starting this sub tiff.

Great bolshy yarblockos!

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

BPL strikes another win ...
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
Jim Lux wrote:


This is only true if you're doing a ARQ type protocol. If you're
expecting interference (and BPL certainly is), a Forward Error
Correction type strategy would be a much better bet. For instance, ECC
memory uses a rate 8/11 code (3 syndrome bits for 8 databits) to
correct any single bit error and detect double bit errors. For BPL,
one would probably choose some form of multiple carrier encoding
(since interferers are likely to be narrow band) with some form of
interleaving (since interferers are bursty), and a fairly robust code.



Are you talking about OFDM?


That would be one possible implementation. There are others. For
instance, MultiTone FSK is another. Multitone PSK like Link-11/TADIL-A
(which has been used for HF comms for decades) is another.



There are plenty of examples to the contrary of the digital
signal as robust entity. Experiments have been made in which a 5 watt
signal in a car with a mobile antenna will knock out nearby BPL
signals. 100 watts in a car will do even more damage, and a base
station yet more. Other experiments have shown the so called notches
being abandoned after the system was unable to send good packets.
Kind of like it was getting desperate almost.


But this is merely an example of a specific bad implementation of BPL.
There's no physics reason why one couldn't make it work (whether it's
cost effective is another story).


Sure! They could start running our power into the house through
coax! ;^)

More, I was thinking that the early BPL implementations used fairly
simple receivers and transmitters which aren't particularly interference
immune. Technology, particularly for digital processing, advances quite
quickly.




Seeing as how qrp levels into inefficient antennas can cause
problems, I have to wonder what will happen during the next sunspot max.


The signal level received via ionospheric paths are so low, that the
BPL receiver isn't going to have any trouble regardless of how good
propagation is. OTOH, the interference radiated by BPL will spread
that much wider.


Has asny testing been done on the level of signal needed to start
affecting a BPL type signal? So far, we've gotten the stories like I've
given above, which are practical if anecdotal.

This would be complicated by the fact that there's not just one "BPL
type signal" or, more accurately, one "BPL implementation". One could
design a system using, say, BPSK that is hideously unrobust and another
system, also using BPSK that is very robust.

For instance, BPL doesn't need to have good doppler tolerance, and could
rely on recovering a very stable frequency reference, something that
wouldn't be practical in, say, a cellphone.


But it if it provides access to capital markets for the relatively
small number of people working in the BPL industry, so they can get
paid their salaries and bonuses, then it's a good thing for them.


Sounds like a plausible rationale for the crystal meth industry, too!

Probably more people in that business than in BPL.

BPL strikes another win ...
 

Michael Coslo writes:

At any rate, anyone give thoughts to this being just a way to
get the public utilities to run more fiber, then at a later date, take
it over commercially and service the rest of us with that?

Interestingly, the only significant provider of fiber to the home in
Norway *is* a power utility company.

73 Jon (LA4RT)

BPL strikes another win ...
 

Michael Coslo writes:

Good heavens guys!

Jon just made a little joke in response to my little joke
about the oversensitivity of some people to silly things such as BPL
signals on electric blankets

Instead we have our esteemed members showing their own version
of oversensitivity. No new age accoutrement needed

I am just a bit oversensitive to new age these days. Some of you may
have noticed what our princess has been up to. For the rest of you:
She's running an expensive seminar about how to talk to
angels. Apparently, no news from Norway has been as widely reported
internationally for years. Embarassing!

Folks, don't ley your daughters play with horses. They might fall off,
head first. This must be what happened to the princess.

73
Jon (LA4RT)