| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
March 3rd 04, 07:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
And you think BPL is bad...
http://www.cinergy.com/News/default_...sp?news_id=420
[BPL comes to Cincinatti, with quite a new twist in facts] Let me quote the relevant sections: *** BPL technology can enable a variety of enhanced power distribution applications, including: * Automated outage detection and restoration confirmation * Remote monitoring and operation of switches and transformers * Remote capability to connect and disconnect electric service * More efficient demand-side management programs * Automated meter reading *** All of this by means of TCP/IP. For those not in the IT-Security business: With these services the power companies are in fact handing over control over the power grid to anyone with some understanding of network technology. BPL is really bad for ham radio, but remote controlling critical infrastructures over public networks is worse. I mean *really* worse. Someone should beat *some* sense into these people. Peter Lemken DF5JT Berlin -- Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out and loudly proclaiming, 'Wow, what a ride!'" |
|
#2
March 3rd 04, 01:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#3
March 3rd 04, 01:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
March 11th 04, 04:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cinci Enquirer, March 5, 2005 "Cinergy: ..."
"After careful consideration, however, we believe that these interference concerns can be adequately addressed. Ed Thomas, chief of FCC's engineering and technology office, said proposed rules would require the power-line equipment to have the ability to mitigate harmful interference by shifting frequencies." Sounds like bull to me. Shift from military frequencies, cellular carrier frequencies, and airline frequencies to amateur frequencies - that I can believe. Move the damage, yes. "Mitigate", no.Maybe after some disaster when a critical communications channel is jammed by BPL, some BPL frequencies will be moved around. But darn, it took over a year and some heavy FCC prompting to get Cinergy to fix one lousy arcing insulator in my neighborhood. Excuse? No working interference detection equipment and no one trained in the tri-county Cincinnati area. How well are power companies going to respond BPL interference complaints from all over this huge metropolitan area? Easy to guess that they can't and won't. For Ed Thomas - what's his bio? Any engineering degree? Did he ever have an advanced commercial licenses (1st Class or General??). Is he anything more than a political hack with an "engineering" title? Can someone fill in the blanks on Thomas? ak http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/0901/103.html [ Freeing the Airwaves Scott Woolley, 09.01.03 ] "Ed Thomas, Head, FCC Office of Engineering & Technology The Federal Communications Commission has long been the killing field where new wireless technologies are bumped off and buried. The original FCC was created almost expressly for that purpose--to prevent new wireless signals from interfering with existing radio broadcasters. Ever since, incumbent broadcasters have rabidly opposed new untethered technologies, and FCC regulators typically have sided with them. Not Edmond Thomas. An unlikely bureaucrat, he spent four decades at tech and telecom companies--Philips Electronics, the former Nynex and AT&T, among others--before he began working with the FCC in 2001. He runs the Office of Engineering & Technology, which defines the technical rules by which the airwaves are shared. But instead of hoarding spectrum and protecting the Bells and the broadcasters, Thomas is freeing the airwaves, opening the way for new uses and new gadgets. "Ed is very passionate about trying to do the right thing and letting advanced technology have its proper impact," says Paul Kolodzy, former head of the FCC's spectrum-reform task force. snip Thomas sat through a barrage of criticism from the U.S. military, cellular carriers, the airlines and satellite radio companies. But he argued that limiting ultrawideband gadgets to very low power would minimize interference. " Well, we all know how well QRP works with a good antenna. Now, put some QRP on a power distribution wire that goes for miles above ground, and it should work even better. Goodbye DX for the guys with 100 watts and a GP. Pretty soon the special interests will get all amps banned because they might interfere with BPL. ak "Peter Lemken" wrote in message ... http://www.cinergy.com/News/default_...sp?news_id=420 [BPL comes to Cincinatti, with quite a new twist in facts] Let me quote the relevant sections: *** BPL technology can enable a variety of enhanced power distribution applications, including: * Automated outage detection and restoration confirmation * Remote monitoring and operation of switches and transformers * Remote capability to connect and disconnect electric service * More efficient demand-side management programs * Automated meter reading *** All of this by means of TCP/IP. For those not in the IT-Security business: With these services the power companies are in fact handing over control over the power grid to anyone with some understanding of network technology. BPL is really bad for ham radio, but remote controlling critical infrastructures over public networks is worse. I mean *really* worse. Someone should beat *some* sense into these people. Peter Lemken DF5JT Berlin -- Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out and loudly proclaiming, 'Wow, what a ride!'" |
|
#5
March 11th 04, 04:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cinci Enquirer, March 5, 2005 "Cinergy: ..."
"After careful consideration, however, we believe that these interference concerns can be adequately addressed. Ed Thomas, chief of FCC's engineering and technology office, said proposed rules would require the power-line equipment to have the ability to mitigate harmful interference by shifting frequencies." Sounds like bull to me. Shift from military frequencies, cellular carrier frequencies, and airline frequencies to amateur frequencies - that I can believe. Move the damage, yes. "Mitigate", no.Maybe after some disaster when a critical communications channel is jammed by BPL, some BPL frequencies will be moved around. But darn, it took over a year and some heavy FCC prompting to get Cinergy to fix one lousy arcing insulator in my neighborhood. Excuse? No working interference detection equipment and no one trained in the tri-county Cincinnati area. How well are power companies going to respond BPL interference complaints from all over this huge metropolitan area? Easy to guess that they can't and won't. For Ed Thomas - what's his bio? Any engineering degree? Did he ever have an advanced commercial licenses (1st Class or General??). Is he anything more than a political hack with an "engineering" title? Can someone fill in the blanks on Thomas? ak http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/0901/103.html [ Freeing the Airwaves Scott Woolley, 09.01.03 ] "Ed Thomas, Head, FCC Office of Engineering & Technology The Federal Communications Commission has long been the killing field where new wireless technologies are bumped off and buried. The original FCC was created almost expressly for that purpose--to prevent new wireless signals from interfering with existing radio broadcasters. Ever since, incumbent broadcasters have rabidly opposed new untethered technologies, and FCC regulators typically have sided with them. Not Edmond Thomas. An unlikely bureaucrat, he spent four decades at tech and telecom companies--Philips Electronics, the former Nynex and AT&T, among others--before he began working with the FCC in 2001. He runs the Office of Engineering & Technology, which defines the technical rules by which the airwaves are shared. But instead of hoarding spectrum and protecting the Bells and the broadcasters, Thomas is freeing the airwaves, opening the way for new uses and new gadgets. "Ed is very passionate about trying to do the right thing and letting advanced technology have its proper impact," says Paul Kolodzy, former head of the FCC's spectrum-reform task force. snip Thomas sat through a barrage of criticism from the U.S. military, cellular carriers, the airlines and satellite radio companies. But he argued that limiting ultrawideband gadgets to very low power would minimize interference. " Well, we all know how well QRP works with a good antenna. Now, put some QRP on a power distribution wire that goes for miles above ground, and it should work even better. Goodbye DX for the guys with 100 watts and a GP. Pretty soon the special interests will get all amps banned because they might interfere with BPL. ak "Peter Lemken" wrote in message ... http://www.cinergy.com/News/default_...sp?news_id=420 [BPL comes to Cincinatti, with quite a new twist in facts] Let me quote the relevant sections: *** BPL technology can enable a variety of enhanced power distribution applications, including: * Automated outage detection and restoration confirmation * Remote monitoring and operation of switches and transformers * Remote capability to connect and disconnect electric service * More efficient demand-side management programs * Automated meter reading *** All of this by means of TCP/IP. For those not in the IT-Security business: With these services the power companies are in fact handing over control over the power grid to anyone with some understanding of network technology. BPL is really bad for ham radio, but remote controlling critical infrastructures over public networks is worse. I mean *really* worse. Someone should beat *some* sense into these people. Peter Lemken DF5JT Berlin -- Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out and loudly proclaiming, 'Wow, what a ride!'" |
|
#6
March 14th 04, 02:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You got that right !
plus, these FCC commissioners have no technical degrees, they have experience writing legislation and most are lawyers. Three were educated here in North Carolina and hold degrees from our local universities. Will be interesting when and if they take on of the fcc vans out for a test drive and find all the crap bpl will pollute the spectrum with. I don't think private industry will want to pay for moving their services around, including the airlines. Perhaps they should use 900-3 ghz for bpl ! celll companies would not like it. chuck AK wrote: Cinci Enquirer, March 5, 2005 "Cinergy: ..." "After careful consideration, however, we believe that these interference concerns can be adequately addressed. Ed Thomas, chief of FCC's engineering and technology office, said proposed rules would require the power-line equipment to have the ability to mitigate harmful interference by shifting frequencies." Sounds like bull to me. Shift from military frequencies, cellular carrier frequencies, and airline frequencies to amateur frequencies - that I can believe. Move the damage, yes. "Mitigate", no.Maybe after some disaster when a critical communications channel is jammed by BPL, some BPL frequencies will be moved around. But darn, it took over a year and some heavy FCC prompting to get Cinergy to fix one lousy arcing insulator in my neighborhood. Excuse? No working interference detection equipment and no one trained in the tri-county Cincinnati area. How well are power companies going to respond BPL interference complaints from all over this huge metropolitan area? Easy to guess that they can't and won't. For Ed Thomas - what's his bio? Any engineering degree? Did he ever have an advanced commercial licenses (1st Class or General??). Is he anything more than a political hack with an "engineering" title? Can someone fill in the blanks on Thomas? ak http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/0901/103.html [ Freeing the Airwaves Scott Woolley, 09.01.03 ] "Ed Thomas, Head, FCC Office of Engineering & Technology The Federal Communications Commission has long been the killing field where new wireless technologies are bumped off and buried. The original FCC was created almost expressly for that purpose--to prevent new wireless signals from interfering with existing radio broadcasters. Ever since, incumbent broadcasters have rabidly opposed new untethered technologies, and FCC regulators typically have sided with them. Not Edmond Thomas. An unlikely bureaucrat, he spent four decades at tech and telecom companies--Philips Electronics, the former Nynex and AT&T, among others--before he began working with the FCC in 2001. He runs the Office of Engineering & Technology, which defines the technical rules by which the airwaves are shared. But instead of hoarding spectrum and protecting the Bells and the broadcasters, Thomas is freeing the airwaves, opening the way for new uses and new gadgets. "Ed is very passionate about trying to do the right thing and letting advanced technology have its proper impact," says Paul Kolodzy, former head of the FCC's spectrum-reform task force. snip Thomas sat through a barrage of criticism from the U.S. military, cellular carriers, the airlines and satellite radio companies. But he argued that limiting ultrawideband gadgets to very low power would minimize interference. " Well, we all know how well QRP works with a good antenna. Now, put some QRP on a power distribution wire that goes for miles above ground, and it should work even better. Goodbye DX for the guys with 100 watts and a GP. Pretty soon the special interests will get all amps banned because they might interfere with BPL. ak "Peter Lemken" wrote in message ... http://www.cinergy.com/News/default_...sp?news_id=420 [BPL comes to Cincinatti, with quite a new twist in facts] Let me quote the relevant sections: *** BPL technology can enable a variety of enhanced power distribution applications, including: * Automated outage detection and restoration confirmation * Remote monitoring and operation of switches and transformers * Remote capability to connect and disconnect electric service * More efficient demand-side management programs * Automated meter reading *** All of this by means of TCP/IP. For those not in the IT-Security business: With these services the power companies are in fact handing over control over the power grid to anyone with some understanding of network technology. BPL is really bad for ham radio, but remote controlling critical infrastructures over public networks is worse. I mean *really* worse. Someone should beat *some* sense into these people. Peter Lemken DF5JT Berlin -- Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out and loudly proclaiming, 'Wow, what a ride!'" |
|
#7
March 14th 04, 02:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You got that right !
plus, these FCC commissioners have no technical degrees, they have experience writing legislation and most are lawyers. Three were educated here in North Carolina and hold degrees from our local universities. Will be interesting when and if they take on of the fcc vans out for a test drive and find all the crap bpl will pollute the spectrum with. I don't think private industry will want to pay for moving their services around, including the airlines. Perhaps they should use 900-3 ghz for bpl ! celll companies would not like it. chuck AK wrote: Cinci Enquirer, March 5, 2005 "Cinergy: ..." "After careful consideration, however, we believe that these interference concerns can be adequately addressed. Ed Thomas, chief of FCC's engineering and technology office, said proposed rules would require the power-line equipment to have the ability to mitigate harmful interference by shifting frequencies." Sounds like bull to me. Shift from military frequencies, cellular carrier frequencies, and airline frequencies to amateur frequencies - that I can believe. Move the damage, yes. "Mitigate", no.Maybe after some disaster when a critical communications channel is jammed by BPL, some BPL frequencies will be moved around. But darn, it took over a year and some heavy FCC prompting to get Cinergy to fix one lousy arcing insulator in my neighborhood. Excuse? No working interference detection equipment and no one trained in the tri-county Cincinnati area. How well are power companies going to respond BPL interference complaints from all over this huge metropolitan area? Easy to guess that they can't and won't. For Ed Thomas - what's his bio? Any engineering degree? Did he ever have an advanced commercial licenses (1st Class or General??). Is he anything more than a political hack with an "engineering" title? Can someone fill in the blanks on Thomas? ak http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/0901/103.html [ Freeing the Airwaves Scott Woolley, 09.01.03 ] "Ed Thomas, Head, FCC Office of Engineering & Technology The Federal Communications Commission has long been the killing field where new wireless technologies are bumped off and buried. The original FCC was created almost expressly for that purpose--to prevent new wireless signals from interfering with existing radio broadcasters. Ever since, incumbent broadcasters have rabidly opposed new untethered technologies, and FCC regulators typically have sided with them. Not Edmond Thomas. An unlikely bureaucrat, he spent four decades at tech and telecom companies--Philips Electronics, the former Nynex and AT&T, among others--before he began working with the FCC in 2001. He runs the Office of Engineering & Technology, which defines the technical rules by which the airwaves are shared. But instead of hoarding spectrum and protecting the Bells and the broadcasters, Thomas is freeing the airwaves, opening the way for new uses and new gadgets. "Ed is very passionate about trying to do the right thing and letting advanced technology have its proper impact," says Paul Kolodzy, former head of the FCC's spectrum-reform task force. snip Thomas sat through a barrage of criticism from the U.S. military, cellular carriers, the airlines and satellite radio companies. But he argued that limiting ultrawideband gadgets to very low power would minimize interference. " Well, we all know how well QRP works with a good antenna. Now, put some QRP on a power distribution wire that goes for miles above ground, and it should work even better. Goodbye DX for the guys with 100 watts and a GP. Pretty soon the special interests will get all amps banned because they might interfere with BPL. ak "Peter Lemken" wrote in message ... http://www.cinergy.com/News/default_...sp?news_id=420 [BPL comes to Cincinatti, with quite a new twist in facts] Let me quote the relevant sections: *** BPL technology can enable a variety of enhanced power distribution applications, including: * Automated outage detection and restoration confirmation * Remote monitoring and operation of switches and transformers * Remote capability to connect and disconnect electric service * More efficient demand-side management programs * Automated meter reading *** All of this by means of TCP/IP. For those not in the IT-Security business: With these services the power companies are in fact handing over control over the power grid to anyone with some understanding of network technology. BPL is really bad for ham radio, but remote controlling critical infrastructures over public networks is worse. I mean *really* worse. Someone should beat *some* sense into these people. Peter Lemken DF5JT Berlin -- Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out and loudly proclaiming, 'Wow, what a ride!'" |
|
#8
March 14th 04, 04:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"charlie" wrote in message ... You got that right ! plus, these FCC commissioners have no technical degrees, they have experience writing legislation and most are lawyers. Three were educated here in North Carolina and hold degrees from our local universities. Carolina? Duke? ECU? I passed the 1st Class Radiotelephone commercial and 2nd class telegraphy licenses while attending NCSU. Took the Extra Amateur exam after graduating. In those good ol' days before incentive licensing, at least a couple of the FCC Commissioners were FCC field engineers being put out to pasture; they DID know something about what they were regulating. I think all these modern day commissioners understand is who is putting up the most special interest money so Congress will do as they are paid off to do. ak |
|
#9
March 14th 04, 04:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"charlie" wrote in message ... You got that right ! plus, these FCC commissioners have no technical degrees, they have experience writing legislation and most are lawyers. Three were educated here in North Carolina and hold degrees from our local universities. Carolina? Duke? ECU? I passed the 1st Class Radiotelephone commercial and 2nd class telegraphy licenses while attending NCSU. Took the Extra Amateur exam after graduating. In those good ol' days before incentive licensing, at least a couple of the FCC Commissioners were FCC field engineers being put out to pasture; they DID know something about what they were regulating. I think all these modern day commissioners understand is who is putting up the most special interest money so Congress will do as they are paid off to do. ak |
|
#10
March 14th 04, 07:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Sunday paper claims FCC Chairman Powell is paid $142,500. I wonder how
much he would be worth if he understood anything technical about communications? Andy |
Linear Mode
