|
dumb question about BPL
I know the proposed BPL system uses frequencies from 2-80 MHz
and I belive it uses spread spectrum. Does it have to use every possible freq in that range or could it skip the ham bands if we kick up enough fuss? It seems pretty clear to me that it will happen - 150,000 hams are outnumbered by more than 100:1 by those who want broadband delivered to the doorstep. Not only do I think it will happen, but I also expect the RFI levels to be "adjusted" so as to allow more pollution - hey, it works for greenhouse gas and power plants and...... Derek aa5bt |
"Derek Wills" wrote in message ... I know the proposed BPL system uses frequencies from 2-80 MHz and I belive it uses spread spectrum. Does it have to use every possible freq in that range or could it skip the ham bands if we kick up enough fuss? I'm guessing it will make enough of a mess that harmonics will also be a problem. It seems pretty clear to me that it will happen - 150,000 hams are outnumbered by more than 100:1 by those who want broadband delivered to the doorstep. You make the assumption that BPL will actually deliver broadband! It is one of the stupidest proposals I've seen. Not only do I think it will happen, but I also expect the RFI levels to be "adjusted" so as to allow more pollution - hey, it works for greenhouse gas and power plants and...... Exactly. "Gee, we need more signal to get the bandwidth we need." "Those hams are causing interference to our network, get them off air." Derek aa5bt -- ... Hank Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net |
"Derek Wills" wrote in message ... I know the proposed BPL system uses frequencies from 2-80 MHz and I belive it uses spread spectrum. Does it have to use every possible freq in that range or could it skip the ham bands if we kick up enough fuss? I'm guessing it will make enough of a mess that harmonics will also be a problem. It seems pretty clear to me that it will happen - 150,000 hams are outnumbered by more than 100:1 by those who want broadband delivered to the doorstep. You make the assumption that BPL will actually deliver broadband! It is one of the stupidest proposals I've seen. Not only do I think it will happen, but I also expect the RFI levels to be "adjusted" so as to allow more pollution - hey, it works for greenhouse gas and power plants and...... Exactly. "Gee, we need more signal to get the bandwidth we need." "Those hams are causing interference to our network, get them off air." Derek aa5bt -- ... Hank Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net |
"Derek Wills" wrote in message ... I know the proposed BPL system uses frequencies from 2-80 MHz and I belive it uses spread spectrum. Does it have to use every possible freq in that range or could it skip the ham bands if we kick up enough fuss? It seems pretty clear to me that it will happen - 150,000 hams are outnumbered by more than 100:1 by those who want broadband delivered to the doorstep. Not only do I think it will happen, but I also expect the RFI levels to be "adjusted" so as to allow more pollution - hey, it works for greenhouse gas and power plants and...... Derek aa5bt Keep in mind that the non-ham frequencies are also used by somebody (government, commercial interests, etc.). So skipping around the ham frequencies doesn't really solve the problem. Some one is going to be interfered with. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Derek Wills" wrote in message ... I know the proposed BPL system uses frequencies from 2-80 MHz and I belive it uses spread spectrum. Does it have to use every possible freq in that range or could it skip the ham bands if we kick up enough fuss? It seems pretty clear to me that it will happen - 150,000 hams are outnumbered by more than 100:1 by those who want broadband delivered to the doorstep. Not only do I think it will happen, but I also expect the RFI levels to be "adjusted" so as to allow more pollution - hey, it works for greenhouse gas and power plants and...... Derek aa5bt Keep in mind that the non-ham frequencies are also used by somebody (government, commercial interests, etc.). So skipping around the ham frequencies doesn't really solve the problem. Some one is going to be interfered with. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Keep in mind that the non-ham frequencies are also used by somebody
(government, commercial interests, etc.). So skipping around the ham frequencies doesn't really solve the problem. Some one is going to be interfered with. Yes, of course, but they are not always right up against the power lines as the typical ham is. Derek aa5bt |
Keep in mind that the non-ham frequencies are also used by somebody
(government, commercial interests, etc.). So skipping around the ham frequencies doesn't really solve the problem. Some one is going to be interfered with. Yes, of course, but they are not always right up against the power lines as the typical ham is. Derek aa5bt |
"Derek Wills" wrote in message ... Keep in mind that the non-ham frequencies are also used by somebody (government, commercial interests, etc.). So skipping around the ham frequencies doesn't really solve the problem. Some one is going to be interfered with. Yes, of course, but they are not always right up against the power lines as the typical ham is. I bet most, if not all of them, have power lines going directly into their facilities. In many cases they may have more than one feed. -- ... Hank Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net |
"Derek Wills" wrote in message ... Keep in mind that the non-ham frequencies are also used by somebody (government, commercial interests, etc.). So skipping around the ham frequencies doesn't really solve the problem. Some one is going to be interfered with. Yes, of course, but they are not always right up against the power lines as the typical ham is. I bet most, if not all of them, have power lines going directly into their facilities. In many cases they may have more than one feed. -- ... Hank Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net |
Hank Oredson wrote:
It seems pretty clear to me that it will happen - 150,000 hams are outnumbered by more than 100:1 by those who want broadband delivered to the doorstep. You make the assumption that BPL will actually deliver broadband! It is one of the stupidest proposals I've seen. That, and most of the people who are willing to pay the price for broadband already have it. It's my understanding that BPL has already failed financially in Germany and early plans for deployment in the U.K. seem to have slowed down substantially. I'm of the sense that both cable and DSL are far more common in the U.S. than in Europe - that if BPL couldn't make a go of it in Europe where comparatively few consumers already have a competing technology, then it's even less likely to work (financially) in the U.S. where the competition does have a solid head start. My fear... is that the power companies really aren't all that interested in providing broadband internet. They're tired of being cited for leaky insulators and want to get the Part 15 limits raised so they don't have to bother fixing them. ================================================== ======================= I note with interest they're talking about using frequencies as high as 80MHz. All three major TV network affiliates here are on low-band VHF channels 2, 4, and 5. An S6 signal in the 54-82MHz band will cause harmful interference to all three stations. And the digital TV conversion won't solve the problem - the CBS station's digital assignment is 56 which means they're going to be back on channel 5 - 76-82MHz - at the end of transition. Judging from how ATSC digital TV deals with impulse noise, I suspect an S6 BPL signal in TV channel 5 will make digital reception on that channel impossible. Channels 2, 4, and 5 are used for major stations in Boston, NYC, Chicago, Detroit, San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles, Dallas, and many other smaller cities. National Association of Broadcasters vs. the electric power industry. Could be an interesting battle. (I wonder what an S6 BPL signal at 49MHz would do to a baby monitor?) -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
Hank Oredson wrote:
It seems pretty clear to me that it will happen - 150,000 hams are outnumbered by more than 100:1 by those who want broadband delivered to the doorstep. You make the assumption that BPL will actually deliver broadband! It is one of the stupidest proposals I've seen. That, and most of the people who are willing to pay the price for broadband already have it. It's my understanding that BPL has already failed financially in Germany and early plans for deployment in the U.K. seem to have slowed down substantially. I'm of the sense that both cable and DSL are far more common in the U.S. than in Europe - that if BPL couldn't make a go of it in Europe where comparatively few consumers already have a competing technology, then it's even less likely to work (financially) in the U.S. where the competition does have a solid head start. My fear... is that the power companies really aren't all that interested in providing broadband internet. They're tired of being cited for leaky insulators and want to get the Part 15 limits raised so they don't have to bother fixing them. ================================================== ======================= I note with interest they're talking about using frequencies as high as 80MHz. All three major TV network affiliates here are on low-band VHF channels 2, 4, and 5. An S6 signal in the 54-82MHz band will cause harmful interference to all three stations. And the digital TV conversion won't solve the problem - the CBS station's digital assignment is 56 which means they're going to be back on channel 5 - 76-82MHz - at the end of transition. Judging from how ATSC digital TV deals with impulse noise, I suspect an S6 BPL signal in TV channel 5 will make digital reception on that channel impossible. Channels 2, 4, and 5 are used for major stations in Boston, NYC, Chicago, Detroit, San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles, Dallas, and many other smaller cities. National Association of Broadcasters vs. the electric power industry. Could be an interesting battle. (I wonder what an S6 BPL signal at 49MHz would do to a baby monitor?) -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:33:54 GMT, Doug Smith W9WI
wrote: That, and most of the people who are willing to pay the price for broadband already have it. I think that's probably a bad guess. To get DSL service, you have to be within x amount of distance from the phone company switch. To get cable access, you have to have cable TV...... In the area I'm in, there are thousands of homes with no DSL availability, and no cable TV service. And since the cable TV service in this area is so bad, people who could have cable TV are using satellite TV instead, as are those who are outside the cable coverage area. So in this area there are plenty of potential customers for some sort of broadband service. Not that BPL is the answer, or a good idea, I just wouldn't bank on the assumption that everybody who wants broadband already has it....... Not to mention the fact that if there was ho market for it the people who are pushing it/testing it probably wouldn't be doing so. 73, Jim KH2D |
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:33:54 GMT, Doug Smith W9WI
wrote: That, and most of the people who are willing to pay the price for broadband already have it. I think that's probably a bad guess. To get DSL service, you have to be within x amount of distance from the phone company switch. To get cable access, you have to have cable TV...... In the area I'm in, there are thousands of homes with no DSL availability, and no cable TV service. And since the cable TV service in this area is so bad, people who could have cable TV are using satellite TV instead, as are those who are outside the cable coverage area. So in this area there are plenty of potential customers for some sort of broadband service. Not that BPL is the answer, or a good idea, I just wouldn't bank on the assumption that everybody who wants broadband already has it....... Not to mention the fact that if there was ho market for it the people who are pushing it/testing it probably wouldn't be doing so. 73, Jim KH2D |
wrote in message .. . On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:33:54 GMT, Doug Smith W9WI wrote: That, and most of the people who are willing to pay the price for broadband already have it. I think that's probably a bad guess. To get DSL service, you have to be within x amount of distance from the phone company switch. To get cable access, you have to have cable TV...... In the area I'm in, there are thousands of homes with no DSL availability, and no cable TV service. And since the cable TV service in this area is so bad, people who could have cable TV are using satellite TV instead, as are those who are outside the cable coverage area. So in this area there are plenty of potential customers for some sort of broadband service. Not that BPL is the answer, or a good idea, I just wouldn't bank on the assumption that everybody who wants broadband already has it....... Not to mention the fact that if there was ho market for it the people who are pushing it/testing it probably wouldn't be doing so. 73, Jim KH2D The power companies haven't really looked at the investment to make it happen. They have just looked at the size of the potential market. I recently saw an article where a financial adviser discusses this very issue. The power companies actually propose this every few years and then find it to be too large an investment. I hope that is true now too. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
wrote in message .. . On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:33:54 GMT, Doug Smith W9WI wrote: That, and most of the people who are willing to pay the price for broadband already have it. I think that's probably a bad guess. To get DSL service, you have to be within x amount of distance from the phone company switch. To get cable access, you have to have cable TV...... In the area I'm in, there are thousands of homes with no DSL availability, and no cable TV service. And since the cable TV service in this area is so bad, people who could have cable TV are using satellite TV instead, as are those who are outside the cable coverage area. So in this area there are plenty of potential customers for some sort of broadband service. Not that BPL is the answer, or a good idea, I just wouldn't bank on the assumption that everybody who wants broadband already has it....... Not to mention the fact that if there was ho market for it the people who are pushing it/testing it probably wouldn't be doing so. 73, Jim KH2D The power companies haven't really looked at the investment to make it happen. They have just looked at the size of the potential market. I recently saw an article where a financial adviser discusses this very issue. The power companies actually propose this every few years and then find it to be too large an investment. I hope that is true now too. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message ... My fear... is that the power companies really aren't all that interested in providing broadband internet. They're tired of being cited for leaky insulators and want to get the Part 15 limits raised so they don't have to bother fixing them. Even if the limits are raised, the rules will still not permit them to interfere with licensed services such as commercial broadcasting and amateur radio even if their emissions are within limits. They would have to change that provision also. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message ... My fear... is that the power companies really aren't all that interested in providing broadband internet. They're tired of being cited for leaky insulators and want to get the Part 15 limits raised so they don't have to bother fixing them. Even if the limits are raised, the rules will still not permit them to interfere with licensed services such as commercial broadcasting and amateur radio even if their emissions are within limits. They would have to change that provision also. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
The power companies actually propose this every few years and
then find it to be too large an investment. I hope that is true now too. Regardless, the FCC is pretty certainly going to encourage it as much as possible. Katherine Abernathy, the FCC commisioner who gave the "BPL is Nirvana" speech recently, used to work for "Broadband Office Communications", for a start... It will be a sad day if it comes about with no protection for the HF spectrum users. We've worried for a long time that someone would like to take our freqs away from us for their own use, but to use the HF spectrum as a garbage can is even worse. Perhaps we should start a rumor that it will be easy to decode people's keystrokes by listening to the power lines? Or better yet, perhaps it will be. Don't tell Ashcroft... Derek aa5bt |
The power companies actually propose this every few years and
then find it to be too large an investment. I hope that is true now too. Regardless, the FCC is pretty certainly going to encourage it as much as possible. Katherine Abernathy, the FCC commisioner who gave the "BPL is Nirvana" speech recently, used to work for "Broadband Office Communications", for a start... It will be a sad day if it comes about with no protection for the HF spectrum users. We've worried for a long time that someone would like to take our freqs away from us for their own use, but to use the HF spectrum as a garbage can is even worse. Perhaps we should start a rumor that it will be easy to decode people's keystrokes by listening to the power lines? Or better yet, perhaps it will be. Don't tell Ashcroft... Derek aa5bt |
Even if the limits are raised, the rules will still not permit them to
interfere with licensed services such as commercial broadcasting and amateur radio even if their emissions are within limits. They would have to change that provision also. You think they wouldn't change it?? How much commerical broadcasting goes on between 2-80 MHz? Is it a coincidence that the AM band stops just below 2 MHz and the FM one starts just above 80 MHz? Just imagine all the world's DXers being crowded into the 160m band - yikes! Derek aa5bt |
Even if the limits are raised, the rules will still not permit them to
interfere with licensed services such as commercial broadcasting and amateur radio even if their emissions are within limits. They would have to change that provision also. You think they wouldn't change it?? How much commerical broadcasting goes on between 2-80 MHz? Is it a coincidence that the AM band stops just below 2 MHz and the FM one starts just above 80 MHz? Just imagine all the world's DXers being crowded into the 160m band - yikes! Derek aa5bt |
|
|
Even if the limits are raised, the rules will still not permit them
to interfere with licensed services such as commercial broadcasting and amateur radio even if their emissions are within limits. They would have to change that provision also. I don't think you have a grasp of the problem. Consider the current part 15 rules that are completely ignored by the manufacturers of cheap electronics. They just sell cheap junk and let us fight with our neighbors about interference or RFI. How many new hams do you know that have quit HF because of RFI problems with cheap telephones and other electronics? The BPL providers will just push the problem off to their customers and let us fight with our neighbors. When they are forced to act, they'll find ways to stall and avoid fixing the problems as long as possible (just like they do with leaky insulators and bad grounds). Most hams will become discouraged and give-up on HF. Imagine this scenario: Your neighbor gets a shiny new BPL internet connection and is dazzled by it's performance. You have serious interference from his connection. You complain. The Power Company contacts your neighbor and says 'we're disconnecting you (and all your neighbors) because the HAM next door doesn't like the noise your internet connection makes on his radio'. Guess who ends up the bad guy. Steve |
Even if the limits are raised, the rules will still not permit them
to interfere with licensed services such as commercial broadcasting and amateur radio even if their emissions are within limits. They would have to change that provision also. I don't think you have a grasp of the problem. Consider the current part 15 rules that are completely ignored by the manufacturers of cheap electronics. They just sell cheap junk and let us fight with our neighbors about interference or RFI. How many new hams do you know that have quit HF because of RFI problems with cheap telephones and other electronics? The BPL providers will just push the problem off to their customers and let us fight with our neighbors. When they are forced to act, they'll find ways to stall and avoid fixing the problems as long as possible (just like they do with leaky insulators and bad grounds). Most hams will become discouraged and give-up on HF. Imagine this scenario: Your neighbor gets a shiny new BPL internet connection and is dazzled by it's performance. You have serious interference from his connection. You complain. The Power Company contacts your neighbor and says 'we're disconnecting you (and all your neighbors) because the HAM next door doesn't like the noise your internet connection makes on his radio'. Guess who ends up the bad guy. Steve |
"Dee D. Flint" said :
Keep in mind that the non-ham frequencies are also used by somebody (government, commercial interests, etc.). So skipping around the ham frequencies doesn't really solve the problem. Some one is going to be interfered with. Might also be interesting in aviation circles as well...75 MHz markers are still in use as far as I know...usually on criticl ILS approaches (Not IFR rated-yet-but I remember this from my theory way-back-when). 73 de Peter, W2IRT (ex-AB2NZ, VE3THX) Please reply to Double-you Two Eye Are Tee at Arrl.net |
"Dee D. Flint" said :
Keep in mind that the non-ham frequencies are also used by somebody (government, commercial interests, etc.). So skipping around the ham frequencies doesn't really solve the problem. Some one is going to be interfered with. Might also be interesting in aviation circles as well...75 MHz markers are still in use as far as I know...usually on criticl ILS approaches (Not IFR rated-yet-but I remember this from my theory way-back-when). 73 de Peter, W2IRT (ex-AB2NZ, VE3THX) Please reply to Double-you Two Eye Are Tee at Arrl.net |
"Derek Wills" wrote in message ... I know the proposed BPL system uses frequencies from 2-80 MHz and I belive it uses spread spectrum. At the moment, it does not appear that they are using the entire 2-80 MHz, at least in Emmaus, PA ... but they could expand. Does it have to use every possible freq in that range or could it skip the ham bands if we kick up enough fuss? There is still the issue of intermod, harmonics, etc. And, simply avoiding the ham bands won't protect the other users of HF. NTIA and its USG "clients" will, hopefully, be one of our strongest allies ... we should not take a "protect us and the heck with everyone else" approach ... to do so would dillute our potential support. It seems pretty clear to me that it will happen - 150,000 hams are outnumbered by more than 100:1 by those who want broadband delivered to the doorstep. Not only do I think it will happen, but I also expect the RFI levels to be "adjusted" so as to allow more pollution - hey, it works for greenhouse gas and power plants and...... Clearly, BPL proponents want to be allowed to use higher levels. That, of course, will only make the interference that much worse than it already is (which is MORE than bad enough - horrible, in fact). 73, Carl - wk3c |
"Derek Wills" wrote in message ... I know the proposed BPL system uses frequencies from 2-80 MHz and I belive it uses spread spectrum. At the moment, it does not appear that they are using the entire 2-80 MHz, at least in Emmaus, PA ... but they could expand. Does it have to use every possible freq in that range or could it skip the ham bands if we kick up enough fuss? There is still the issue of intermod, harmonics, etc. And, simply avoiding the ham bands won't protect the other users of HF. NTIA and its USG "clients" will, hopefully, be one of our strongest allies ... we should not take a "protect us and the heck with everyone else" approach ... to do so would dillute our potential support. It seems pretty clear to me that it will happen - 150,000 hams are outnumbered by more than 100:1 by those who want broadband delivered to the doorstep. Not only do I think it will happen, but I also expect the RFI levels to be "adjusted" so as to allow more pollution - hey, it works for greenhouse gas and power plants and...... Clearly, BPL proponents want to be allowed to use higher levels. That, of course, will only make the interference that much worse than it already is (which is MORE than bad enough - horrible, in fact). 73, Carl - wk3c |
avoiding the ham bands won't protect the other users of HF.
NTIA and its USG "clients" will, hopefully, be one of our strongest allies ... we should not take a "protect us and the heck with everyone else" approach ... to do so would dillute our potential support. I saw a report yesterday to the effect that some AM stations were being wiped out by BPL noise. The number of people needing their daily fix of Dr Laura and Rush PooBah easily outnumber the ARRL membership, so this is good news for us. Derek aa5bt |
avoiding the ham bands won't protect the other users of HF.
NTIA and its USG "clients" will, hopefully, be one of our strongest allies ... we should not take a "protect us and the heck with everyone else" approach ... to do so would dillute our potential support. I saw a report yesterday to the effect that some AM stations were being wiped out by BPL noise. The number of people needing their daily fix of Dr Laura and Rush PooBah easily outnumber the ARRL membership, so this is good news for us. Derek aa5bt |
Sure,
What I do not understand is that anybody with a scientific education can see easily: big radiating short-wave antenna will transmit signals all over the earth, so should be unlawful by any means as it will not be limited to polluting the ether in the US of A but the globe. Anyway, I think the governing power never made a big issue of that (radiation fallout etc was never kept inside the frontiers either and the cancer rate keeps going up! Guess twice why) Don't really see what international goodwill in your rules means nowadays. BTW BPL experiments in several places in the E.U. showed clearly the technique is not up to standard even if some results are kept secret too. So just keep arguing counter and I hope every ham at least writes just one letter to his representative in the governing body, imho the only way to make any impact. "Derek Wills" schreef in bericht ... avoiding the ham bands won't protect the other users of HF. NTIA and its USG "clients" will, hopefully, be one of our strongest allies ... we should not take a "protect us and the heck with everyone else" approach ... to do so would dillute our potential support. I saw a report yesterday to the effect that some AM stations were being wiped out by BPL noise. The number of people needing their daily fix of Dr Laura and Rush PooBah easily outnumber the ARRL membership, so this is good news for us. Derek aa5bt |
Sure,
What I do not understand is that anybody with a scientific education can see easily: big radiating short-wave antenna will transmit signals all over the earth, so should be unlawful by any means as it will not be limited to polluting the ether in the US of A but the globe. Anyway, I think the governing power never made a big issue of that (radiation fallout etc was never kept inside the frontiers either and the cancer rate keeps going up! Guess twice why) Don't really see what international goodwill in your rules means nowadays. BTW BPL experiments in several places in the E.U. showed clearly the technique is not up to standard even if some results are kept secret too. So just keep arguing counter and I hope every ham at least writes just one letter to his representative in the governing body, imho the only way to make any impact. "Derek Wills" schreef in bericht ... avoiding the ham bands won't protect the other users of HF. NTIA and its USG "clients" will, hopefully, be one of our strongest allies ... we should not take a "protect us and the heck with everyone else" approach ... to do so would dillute our potential support. I saw a report yesterday to the effect that some AM stations were being wiped out by BPL noise. The number of people needing their daily fix of Dr Laura and Rush PooBah easily outnumber the ARRL membership, so this is good news for us. Derek aa5bt |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com