BPL has about as much future as Fractal Antennas (none).

"Fractenna"
I couldn't agree more.

Yes, "none".

I'm glad that we agree on this point.


If you mean that fractal antennas have no impact on your life, I take this as
axiomatic.

I repeat, I agree that BPL has about as much future as fractal antennas. I
agree heartily; both have bright futures indeed!

73,
Chip N1IR

BPL will be one of many options many folks will have, and in many cases it
will
be the only and/or best one. That is why it will be successful in the United
States.

Other options are bound to capture relevant market share as well. It's a big
country and a huge market, easily amenable to several tech paths Everyone


Freak me up Scotty!
As they say in Bush country - Bulsheeeeeet!

BUm

Is it universities that are screwing up brains?

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...

Why use HF spectrum when there is so much other, more suitable and much
wider, spectrum available way up the bands

Because the extant infrastructure is overly lossy at higher frequencies.

It IS extant infrastructure. Hard to argue that point, my friend.


Actually calling it an extant infrastructure is a gross oversimplification.
They have to add signal boosters every couple of miles plus bypasses to
every transformer. Where the lines are in the average condition for this
country (which equates to poor condition), they will have to upgrade the
lines themselves. Where there is noise on the lines, say due to industry
(welders for example really put a lot of noise across them), they'll have to
track it down and filter it out. Dry areas have a lot of static and they
may have to shield the lines for reliable data transfer. The plains states
have a lot of thunderstorms and once again they may have to shield the lines
to have reliable performance.

There's a lot of expense in implementing this and a lot of time consuming
work. The rural areas will never get it as there simply aren't enough
customers per mile to break even. Besides by the time they get the rural
areas covered, if they ever do, these people will have gone to satellite or
WI-FI and there won't be a market.


BPL will be one of many options many folks will have, and in many cases it
will
be the only and/or best one. That is why it will be successful in the
United
States.


Not true. Small towns and larger already have dial up and many have DSL and
cable access. Some already have WI-FI and satellite. People outside of the
towns will NOT be served regardless of the marketing hype due to cost.
Customers per mile won't justify it.

Other options are bound to capture relevant market share as well. It's a
big
country and a huge market, easily amenable to several tech paths Everyone
wins! What a deal!


For BPL to capture and KEEP market share, it's going to have to be as cheap
as dial up and as fast and reliable as cable or DSL. Otherwise it may get
implemented in spots but is doomed to basically wither and die on the vine.

That is why BPL is supported by both Presidential candidates. One of the
few
points both these gentlemen agree on.:-)


No they support it because of the marketing hype that has been done and the
fact that neither is really conversant with the technology. After all they
few it as having an infrastructure in place, which is in fact not true.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Actually calling it an extant infrastructure is a gross oversimplification.

I beg to differ. I used the word properly.

They have to add signal boosters every couple of miles plus bypasses to
every transformer. Where the lines are in the average condition for this
country (which equates to poor condition), they will have to upgrade the
lines themselves. Where there is noise on the lines, say due to industry
(welders for example really put a lot of noise across them), they'll have to
track it down and filter it out. Dry areas have a lot of static and they
may have to shield the lines for reliable data transfer. The plains states
have a lot of thunderstorms and once again they may have to shield the lines
to have reliable performance.


Minor logistical issues; part of doing business.

There's a lot of expense in implementing this and a lot of time consuming
work.

Incremental.

The rural areas will never get it as there simply aren't enough
customers per mile to break even. Besides by the time they get the rural
areas covered, if they ever do, these people will have gone to satellite or
WI-FI and there won't be a market.


Speculation; asserted but not shown.

BPL will be one of many options many folks will have, and in many cases it
will
be the only and/or best one. That is why it will be successful in the
United
States.


Not true. Small towns and larger already have dial up and many have DSL and
cable access. Some already have WI-FI and satellite. People outside of the
towns will NOT be served regardless of the marketing hype due to cost.
Customers per mile won't justify it.

Obviously there will be market locations where the business case is compelling;
others where it will be not. Are you saying that they haven't done the business
case? I don't see evidence that your assertions come from such analyses.

The important point is that ham radio is not a factor in the business case, in
my opinion. Ham radio: 'we did you already, didn't we?' Why should we belabor a
point already dealt with, and deal with in great sensitivity and fairness?.


Other options are bound to capture relevant market share as well. It's a
big
country and a huge market, easily amenable to several tech paths Everyone
wins! What a deal!


For BPL to capture and KEEP market share, it's going to have to be as cheap
as dial up and as fast and reliable as cable or DSL. Otherwise it may get
implemented in spots but is doomed to basically wither and die on the vine.


Yes, I agree. Except the 'doomed' case sounds like 20 sigma, to me.

That is why BPL is supported by both Presidential candidates. One of the
few
points both these gentlemen agree on.:-)


No they support it because of the marketing hype that has been done and the
fact that neither is really conversant with the technology.

That is SO wrong. Senator Kerry--I know as a fact--is VERY cognizant in telecom
matters, which include BPL. His staff is superb. I cannot speak from experience
regarding President Bush, although I like what I hear.

After all they
few it as having an infrastructure in place, which is in fact not true.

Sure it is. Infrastructure is not the same as implementation.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


73,
Chip N1IR

"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

"Noname" wrote in message
...
BPL has about as much future as Fractal Antennas (none).

"Fractenna"
I couldn't agree more.

Yes, "none".

I'm glad that we agree on this point.





Guess it depends on your definition of "none". g


Ed
wb6wsn

Guess it depends on your definition of "none". g


Ed

Don't follow...what is context?

73,
Chip N1IR

BPL is simply a poor technical solution, and is an interim communications
step that should be bypassed.

Why wait? People have things to say and see right now.

Ultimately, all telecom systems transition. BPL has the good fortune of having
an infrastructure and a need right now; tomorrow; and for some time to come.

Seize the day! Solve a pressing problem. BPL looks very promising.

73,
Chip N1IR

You never were much for details, were you?

BPL has about as much future as Fractal Antennas (none).

Note the (none) at the end of the sentence, before the period.

-SSB

Fractenna wrote:

Guess it depends on your definition of "none". g


Ed


Don't follow...what is context?

73,
Chip N1IR

At the expense of interference on the HF bands? No thanks.

-SSB

Fractenna wrote:

BPL is simply a poor technical solution, and is an interim communications
step that should be bypassed.


Why wait? People have things to say and see right now.

Ultimately, all telecom systems transition. BPL has the good fortune of having
an infrastructure and a need right now; tomorrow; and for some time to come.

Seize the day! Solve a pressing problem. BPL looks very promising.

73,
Chip N1IR