Ed Price wrote:


"Fractenna" wrote in message
...

Dear OM,

I am sorry that you take personal offense; I will be happy to state
why this
was posted:

1) it has been an ongoing topic on this NG for a long time, and now we
have
final resolution;
2) I did not expect nor require anyone to respond, ergo the 'troll
factor' is
not an issue;
3) The FCC has taken careful and measured steps to assure that US
amateurs
remain with the enjoyment of the HF bands, given the sharing of
spectrum with
BPL.
4)It is the very best scenario for all involved. That is definitely worth
gloating over.

Wishing you the best,

Chip N1IR



The "very best solution" would be to allow the utilities to use their
extensive system of power poles to string a fiberoptic cable to
residences (either direct, or maybe the last half-mile as an RF node).
If the power companies had spent their lobbying and legal money on
installing this base, a lot of people would now have high-speed net
connections.

Ed, if my understanding is correct, the power companies will indeed be
stringing fiber optic cables. There will be one going right by your
house if you are blessed to live in an bpl blessed neighborhood. THe
infrastructure must be built. I think there is an impression that the
power companies are just going to alligator clip a bpl signal on the
lines at the generating plant. Power lines are fair at delivering low
frequency and high power. At HF they aren't so hot.

So while you have the leaky, degraded signal with the dubious
convenience of being placed from the HV lines to the other side of your
line transformer (and let's just hope that has been worked out to be
safe) wouldn't it just make more sense to get the fast signal from the
proper source? Going right by your house....

BPL is the industry equivalent of putting bicycle tires on a top fuel
dragster.

A triumph of politics over technology.

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:08:32 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

[snip]

| A triumph of politics over technology.
|
Bingo!

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Ed Price wrote:


"Fractenna" wrote in message
...


SNIP

3) The FCC has taken careful and measured steps to assure that US
amateurs
remain with the enjoyment of the HF bands, given the sharing of spectrum
with
BPL.
4)It is the very best scenario for all involved. That is definitely
worth
gloating over.

Wishing you the best,

Chip N1IR



The "very best solution" would be to allow the utilities to use their
extensive system of power poles to string a fiberoptic cable to
residences (either direct, or maybe the last half-mile as an RF node). If
the power companies had spent their lobbying and legal money on
installing this base, a lot of people would now have high-speed net
connections.

Ed, if my understanding is correct, the power companies will indeed be
stringing fiber optic cables. There will be one going right by your house
if you are blessed to live in an bpl blessed neighborhood. THe
infrastructure must be built. I think there is an impression that the
power companies are just going to alligator clip a bpl signal on the lines
at the generating plant. Power lines are fair at delivering low frequency
and high power. At HF they aren't so hot.

So while you have the leaky, degraded signal with the dubious convenience
of being placed from the HV lines to the other side of your line
transformer (and let's just hope that has been worked out to be safe)
wouldn't it just make more sense to get the fast signal from the proper
source? Going right by your house....

BPL is the industry equivalent of putting bicycle tires on a top fuel
dragster.

A triumph of politics over technology.

- Mike KB3EIA -



I agree that the power companies can't couple to their intermediate
distribution lines, since coupling across the next set of step-down
transformers is poor. I was thinking that the power companies will have to
run fiberoptic to the customer side of each of their lowest-level
distribution transformers. (As an example, in my case, my residential power
feed is a 240 VAC line that is parallel shared with about a dozen other
residences. This 240 VAC is created from a 16 kV to 240 V transformer.)

The power service is already "right to my home." OTOH, the 16 kV
distribution feeds are not always "running right past your home." (True, the
16 kV lines do run past some homes, in order to get to an efficient feed
point for the 16 kV to 240 V transformer. Some people have their power flow
"past" them, at 16 kV, only to come "back" at them at 240 V.)

BPL, as I understand it, will be radiating from a huge number of these 240 V
residential clusters. Since the power company will have to use fiberoptic to
get to their step-down transformers, it seems like they should use
fiberoptic for the last leg too. (And then they wouldn't need a
fiberoptic-to-240 V coupler at the transformer nor the 240 V-to-coax coupler
at each residence.)

Ed
wb6wsn

Good point ed !

Here in NC the bpl was wifi with a sealth antenna inside a streelight
so the hoa and others would not see it.

I agree, with all the poles they own along with the hi tension right of ways,
would cost them less to bury the fiber on the way then go wifi.

scotty

Ed wrote:

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
Dear OM,

I am sorry that you take personal offense; I will be happy to state why
this
was posted:

1) it has been an ongoing topic on this NG for a long time, and now we
have
final resolution;
2) I did not expect nor require anyone to respond, ergo the 'troll factor'
is
not an issue;
3) The FCC has taken careful and measured steps to assure that US amateurs
remain with the enjoyment of the HF bands, given the sharing of spectrum
with
BPL.
4)It is the very best scenario for all involved. That is definitely worth
gloating over.

Wishing you the best,

Chip N1IR

The "very best solution" would be to allow the utilities to use their
extensive system of power poles to string a fiberoptic cable to residences
(either direct, or maybe the last half-mile as an RF node). If the power
companies had spent their lobbying and legal money on installing this base,
a lot of people would now have high-speed net connections.

BPL is simply a poor technical solution, and is an interim communications
step that should be bypassed. You may gloat over your prediction accuracy,
but certainly not over the existence of any form of BPL.

Ed
wb6wsn

Fracky, you have been a regular troll on this group for years. That is why
you posted it and you know it.

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
Dear OM,

I am sorry that you take personal offense; I will be happy to state why
this
was posted:

1) it has been an ongoing topic on this NG for a long time, and now we
have
final resolution;
2) I did not expect nor require anyone to respond, ergo the 'troll factor'
is
not an issue;
3) The FCC has taken careful and measured steps to assure that US amateurs
remain with the enjoyment of the HF bands, given the sharing of spectrum
with
BPL.
4)It is the very best scenario for all involved. That is definitely worth
gloating over.

Wishing you the best,

Chip N1IR

Fractenna wrote:

Dear OM,

I am sorry that you take personal offense; I will be happy to state why this
was posted:

1) it has been an ongoing topic on this NG for a long time, and now we have
final resolution;

Final resolution? Not even close. Part 15 still needs to be rewritten.

2) I did not expect nor require anyone to respond, ergo the 'troll factor' is
not an issue;
3) The FCC has taken careful and measured steps to assure that US amateurs
remain with the enjoyment of the HF bands, given the sharing of spectrum with
BPL.
4)It is the very best scenario for all involved. That is definitely worth
gloating over.

It isn't all about the amateurs.

There is money to be made. Equipment to build, systems to map out and
fiber to run. And in the end, when BPL fails, there will be class action
lawsuits. But in the interim, there was money to be made.

We don't have to worry about gloating, or Hams or whatever. Too much of
the existing infrastructure will interfere with BPL. The power companies
will have to repair this infrastructure, which many are loathe to do
(see F.C.C. enforcement actions) Too many places that will support BPL
at a profit are already served by faster and more reliable systems. And
the rural areas, which BPL was supposed to service admirably, don't have
the population density to run that fiber to.

It isn't the Hams, it is poor technology coupled with a bad business model.

Now if someone wanted to run fiber past my house, and allow me access
to it at what I'm paying now for cable.... *then* I'd be interested!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Fractenna wrote:

Dear OM,

I am sorry that you take personal offense; I will be happy to state why
this
was posted:

1) it has been an ongoing topic on this NG for a long time, and now we have
final resolution;

Final resolution? Not even close. Part 15 still needs to be rewritten.

2) I did not expect nor require anyone to respond, ergo the 'troll factor'
is
not an issue;
3) The FCC has taken careful and measured steps to assure that US amateurs
remain with the enjoyment of the HF bands, given the sharing of spectrum
with
BPL.
4)It is the very best scenario for all involved. That is definitely worth
gloating over.

It isn't all about the amateurs.

There is money to be made. Equipment to build, systems to map out and
fiber to run. And in the end, when BPL fails, there will be class action
lawsuits. But in the interim, there was money to be made.

We don't have to worry about gloating, or Hams or whatever. Too much of

the existing infrastructure will interfere with BPL. The power companies
will have to repair this infrastructure, which many are loathe to do
(see F.C.C. enforcement actions) Too many places that will support BPL
at a profit are already served by faster and more reliable systems. And
the rural areas, which BPL was supposed to service admirably, don't have
the population density to run that fiber to.

It isn't the Hams, it is poor technology coupled with a bad business
model.

Now if someone wanted to run fiber past my house, and allow me access
to it at what I'm paying now for cable.... *then* I'd be interested!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Hi Mike,

Although I disagree with you, it's nice to see thoughtful arguments, as opposed
to 'let's kill the technology' diatribes.

73,
Chip N1IR

Fractenna wrote:


Fractenna wrote:


Dear OM,

I am sorry that you take personal offense; I will be happy to state why

this

was posted:

1) it has been an ongoing topic on this NG for a long time, and now we have
final resolution;

Final resolution? Not even close. Part 15 still needs to be rewritten.


2) I did not expect nor require anyone to respond, ergo the 'troll factor'

is

not an issue;
3) The FCC has taken careful and measured steps to assure that US amateurs
remain with the enjoyment of the HF bands, given the sharing of spectrum

with

BPL.
4)It is the very best scenario for all involved. That is definitely worth
gloating over.

It isn't all about the amateurs.

There is money to be made. Equipment to build, systems to map out and
fiber to run. And in the end, when BPL fails, there will be class action
lawsuits. But in the interim, there was money to be made.

We don't have to worry about gloating, or Hams or whatever. Too much of


the existing infrastructure will interfere with BPL. The power companies
will have to repair this infrastructure, which many are loathe to do
(see F.C.C. enforcement actions) Too many places that will support BPL
at a profit are already served by faster and more reliable systems. And
the rural areas, which BPL was supposed to service admirably, don't have
the population density to run that fiber to.

It isn't the Hams, it is poor technology coupled with a bad business

model.

Now if someone wanted to run fiber past my house, and allow me access
to it at what I'm paying now for cable.... *then* I'd be interested!

- Mike KB3EIA -


Hi Mike,

Although I disagree with you, it's nice to see thoughtful arguments, as opposed
to 'let's kill the technology' diatribes.

Yeah, some of the arguments are a heavy on emotion and short on facts.
And I don't mind discussions with those who disagree with me. Helps to
make up one's mind.

- mike KB3EIA -

3) The FCC has taken careful and measured steps to assure that US amateurs
remain with the enjoyment of the HF bands, given the sharing of spectrum with
BPL.

What spectrum is to be shared? The BPL advocates are asking the FCC to
relax radiation limits. How is that sharing?

On 18 Oct 2004 05:59:20 -0700, (k4wge) wrote:
What spectrum is to be shared? The BPL advocates are asking the FCC to
relax radiation limits. How is that sharing?

We have access to every OTHER Hertz in bandwidth across the spectrum.
Half for us, half for them. Just don't expect all (or significant
portion) of your half in any one place - that just wouldn't be fair
now, would it?

Keep in mind, this is the kinder, gentler compassion we've been
promised and by all CIA investigations into the matter, they've been
overwhelmingly successful (please don't ask for documentation).