|
In article .net,
says... The following is from the President's speech in Minneapolis on April 26, 2004. "Now, the use of broadband has tripled since 2000 from 7 million subscriber lines to 24 million. That's good. But that's way short of the goal for 2007. And so -- by the way, we rank 10th amongst the industrialized world in broadband technology and its availability. That's not good enough for America. Tenth is 10 spots too low as far as I'm concerned. (Applause.) Looks like his arithmetic is almost as good as his grammar. He wants us to be 0th? 8^) -- +----------------------------------------------+ | Bob Schreibmaier K3PH | E-mail: | | Kresgeville, PA 18333 | http://www.dxis.org | +----------------------------------------------+ |
Yes, the technical standards need to be changed to allow BPL: require
all power lines to be shielded. Alan AB2OS On 04/27/04 10:07 am KØHB put fingers to keyboard and launched the following message into cyberspace: The following is from the President's speech in Minneapolis on April 26, 2004. Note the last line of paragraph four. Particularly note the comment "(s)o technical standards need to be changed to encourage that." |
Bob Schreibmaier wrote:
availability. That's not good enough for America. Tenth is 10 spots too low as far as I'm concerned. (Applause.) Looks like his arithmetic is almost as good as his grammar. He wants us to be 0th? 8^) Well, that could just mean he's been spending his spare time learning how to programgrin... -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message ... Bob Schreibmaier wrote: availability. That's not good enough for America. Tenth is 10 spots too low as far as I'm concerned. (Applause.) Looks like his arithmetic is almost as good as his grammar. He wants us to be 0th? 8^) Well, that could just mean he's been spending his spare time learning how to programgrin... -- A friend of mine, K0TO, said If this wasn't the same Man who declared that he was going to start a program to go to Mars, the he was going to build an anti-missile system, that he was going to..... he would be more worried. It is an election year(has been for more than 36 months) and the objective is to promise everything and anything in a way the makes some other group of people responsible for its failure, not you. [This is political party independent by the way -- all of them utilize the same methodology]. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
And so here are some smart things to do: One, increase access to federal land for fiberoptic cables and transmission towers. That makes sense. As you're trying to get broadband spread throughout the company, make sure it's easy to build across federal lands. One sure way to hold things up is that the federal lands say, you can't build on us. Most fibre optic cables use railroad right of ways. The railroad already exists and has direct paths from one city or town to another, and is one entity for the firbre company to lease from. And the railroads like having the extra income. They bury the cable off to one or both sides of the tracks and railroads are used to heavy equipment work being done. Railroads need communications for their signals and keeping track of where the trains are and such anyway. So they throw in extra fibre for that when installing the other fibre. And from those towns fibre is strung along telephone poles to reach that place out in the sticks. Imagine a high speed 'net link to Ted Clampet's shack he had before he got his oil money.... "Wee Doggies, look at this porn"..... :-) So how is some guy in remote Wyoming going to get any broadband technology? Regulatory policy has got to be wise and smart as we encourage the spread of this important technology. There needs to be technical standards to make possible new broadband technologies, such as the use of high-speed communication directly over power lines. Power lines were for electricity; power lines can be used for broadband technology. So the technical standards need to be changed to encourage that. Yeah, BPL serving an entire remote town will give individual users service that will make 300 baud modems seem fast. How much stuff can you multiplex on one set of power cables feeding that town? Else you'd be talking about microwave freqs to get enough bandwidth. And we need to open up more federally controlled wireless spectrum to auction in free public use, to make wireless broadband more accessible, reliable, and affordable. Listen, one of the technologies that's coming is wireless. Then we won't need powerline *wires*..... And if you're living out in -- I should -- I was going to say Crawford, Texas, but it's not -- maybe not nearly as remote. (Laughter.) How about Terlingua, Texas? There's not a lot of wires out there. But wireless technology is going to change all that so long as government policy makes sense. And we're going to continue to support the Federal Communications Commission. Michael Powell -- Chairman Michael Powell, under his leadership, his decision to eliminate burdensome regulations on new broadband networks availability to homes. In other words, clearing out the underbrush of regulation, and we'll get the spread of broadband technology, and America will be better for it. (Applause.) " And make sure we never see another bare breast again at halftime. |
In (rec.radio.amateur.misc), Robert Casey wrote:
Most fibre optic cables use railroad right of ways. The railroad already exists and has direct paths from one city or town to another, and is one entity for the firbre company to lease from. And the railroads like having the extra income. They bury the cable off to one or both sides of the tracks and railroads are used to heavy equipment work being done. Railroads need communications for their signals and keeping track of where the trains are and such anyway. So they throw in extra fibre for that when installing the other fibre. And from those towns fibre is strung along telephone poles to reach that place out in the sticks. Imagine a high speed 'net link to Ted Clampet's shack he had before he got his oil money.... "Wee Doggies, look at this porn"..... :-) An increasing amount of fiber is being buried on (or under) highway right-of-way. I know; I work for a state department of transportation, and we worked deals to get some very nice free bandwidth out of the fibers along some Interstates. I expect we'll be able to do the same for fibers buried along federal and state highways, once the carriers recover from the dot-bomb and start building bandwidth out again. -- Mike Andrews Tired old sysadmin |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 "Mike" == Mike Andrews writes: [... Robert Casey talks about fiber and railroad right-of-ways ...] Mike An increasing amount of fiber is being buried on (or under) Mike highway right-of-way. I know; I work for a state department of Mike transportation, and we worked deals to get some very nice free Mike bandwidth out of the fibers along some Interstates. I expect Mike we'll be able to do the same for fibers buried along federal and Mike state highways, once the carriers recover from the dot-bomb and Mike start building bandwidth out again. This was done five or ten years ago in New York -- I worked at the place that managed the fiber for the state. The fiber was laid along the NYS Thruway, which passes through the nine largest cities in NY and within some short number of miles of a large percentage of the state population. Much of that fiber was dark last I heard. The idea of buried fiber along every two-lane road in the country may be a fantasy, but laying cable along every Interstate is certainly doable with the resources available. Of course, who will run this true "information superhighway" is the next debate... Mike -- Mike Andrews Tired old sysadmin Jack. - -- Jack Twilley jmt at twilley dot org http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAjsOPGPFSfAB/ezgRAoLNAKDQ1ba8/I5uGGZCpqs0U5D2R7HKrwCeMmyq SpbRzv99q4xLcYnhNN6mF2U= =JVbz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
"Jack Twilley" wrote The idea of buried fiber along every two-lane road in the country may be a fantasy, but laying cable along every Interstate is certainly doable with the resources available. Of course, who will run this true "information superhighway" is the next debate... Ten-twelve years ago I was up in northern Minnesota deer hunting. Got up to my stand way back down a township road, 5 miles from the nearest dwelling, at zero-dark-thirty and waited for Bambi's dad to show up with the sunrise. Just in time for morning colors (0800) I start hearing this awful racket off in the distance, like a farmer might be buring drainage tiles or something, except this part of Minnesota hasn't seen an agricultural plow since the depression. Finally got curious (and cold) enough to go investigate. Here, out in the middle of absolute nowhere, is a contract crew burying a 144-fiber cable big as your wrist, and another spare alonside of it. Every half-mile they put in an above-ground service loop, and the next day another crew came behind and plonked down a splice-and-access pedestal at each loop waiting for the subscribers to show up. The pedestals are still there, some kinda shot up, but no customers on the horizon. I bet the local Podunk Power Cooperative is getting ready to roll out BPL in the same manner! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "Jack Twilley" wrote The idea of buried fiber along every two-lane road in the country may be a fantasy, but laying cable along every Interstate is certainly doable with the resources available. Of course, who will run this true "information superhighway" is the next debate... Ten-twelve years ago I was up in northern Minnesota deer hunting. Got up to my stand way back down a township road, 5 miles from the nearest dwelling, at zero-dark-thirty and waited for Bambi's dad to show up with the sunrise. Just in time for morning colors (0800) I start hearing this awful racket off in the distance, like a farmer might be buring drainage tiles or something, except this part of Minnesota hasn't seen an agricultural plow since the depression. Finally got curious (and cold) enough to go investigate. Here, out in the middle of absolute nowhere, is a contract crew burying a 144-fiber cable big as your wrist, and another spare alonside of it. Every half-mile they put in an above-ground service loop, and the next day another crew came behind and plonked down a splice-and-access pedestal at each loop waiting for the subscribers to show up. The pedestals are still there, some kinda shot up, but no customers on the horizon. I bet the local Podunk Power Cooperative is getting ready to roll out BPL in the same manner! 73, de Hans, K0HB Hello, Hans My gut feeling is that if someone is out in the boonies and they *really* want high speed internet, they could go for satellite and have a decent system. Yes, $50.00 per month is not as cheap as you can get cable or DSL (at least in some areas), but it is doable and I doubt too many ISPs are going to try high speed service where, even if they could subscribe everyone, the average population density is 10 per square mile or less ;) I suspect that BPL will go the same route; they'll try, perhaps, but it will be in the cities and suburbs where they can make money (and they will have competition *and* cause a lot of qrm). The low population density areas will *still* not be served (except by satellite or, perhaps, dial-up). As for president, I *still* like Ike!!! 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.669 / Virus Database: 431 - Release Date: 4/26/04 |
Jim Hampton wrote:
... stuff deleted ... I suspect that BPL will go the same route; they'll try, perhaps, but it will be in the cities and suburbs where they can make money (and they will have competition *and* cause a lot of qrm). The low population density areas will *still* not be served (except by satellite or, perhaps, dial-up). I agree with this, except that a satellite link has too much latency to support VPN, so some of us rural folk are still stuck with only dialup (and I$DN). There is an outfit in town that's putting up terrestrial microwave links in the area, but they claim the County is stalling on the approval for the tower they need to service my area. Grrrr! I give BPL little chance of success in my neighborhood - the PG&E lines around here generate so much hash that it would never fly. Had PG&E come out once to look at it aan it went away for awhile, but now that the hot weather's back so's the noise. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA 73, L |
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:37:23 -0400, Minnie Bannister
wrote: |Yes, the technical standards need to be changed to allow BPL: require |all power lines to be shielded. The ones under ground and under water already are. The problem will be when every house in your neighborhood is a big #&%*(*& radiator. Or even worse when your KW wipes out the entire Internet service in a few square miles. I'm a rural customer of an electric cooperative. (I happen to use them for my dialup ISP also) A couple of years ago when I was having a bout of power line interference I happened to talk to their VP for new technology, engineer to engineer. Among other things he told me that reading meters was a big expense since their service area is huge, covering good parts of three counties, one of which is the size of Connecticut. They (we, I'm a part owner) have 29,000 customers and 2,400 miles of lines. So they (we) tried a system of reading the meters remotely, using (very) slow-speed data on the power lines. They couldn't even solve the technical challenges of doing this and wound up changing out most of the meters to ones with built in transmitters that can be interrogated by a guy driving around in a pickup truck. If they can't read my meter remotely how in the hell are they going to supply me with high-speed data transmission? BTW, I've strongly suggested that they don't try. |
Wes Stewart wrote:
If they can't read my meter remotely how in the hell are they going to supply me with high-speed data transmission? BTW, I've strongly suggested that they don't try. I've done the same with our cooperative here. Personally, I think attempts to fight BPL through the political system are a waste of time. The amateur radio community doesn't have the financial resources to outbid the utilities for legislation. What *will* stop BPL is economics. Many of the expenses of offering broadband communications are independent of transmission technology. Obtaining a backbone connection, providing mail & web servers, customer support & billing are all expenses that are the same whether you're providing BPL, DSL, or cable modem service. BPL has the additional disadvantage of requiring well-trained personnel with expensive safety gear to maintain the infrastructure. Most cable and DSL maintenance can be done on the ground. BPL is at an advantage ONLY in very rural places, too small for cable and too far from the CO for DSL. Such places don't have enough customers to pay for the fixed infrastructure. IMHO a few utilities will try full-scale rollouts of BPL - and will find it doesn't sell enough to pay the expenses. It'll go the way of the picturephone. ============= If that doesn't work, we can tell the freeband community what's wiping out 26-29MHz, and post a few photos of the BPL access equipment, and then be sure to not get anywhere near a power pole without a bulletproof vestgrin... -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
"KØHB" wrote While GWB calls for relaxing Part 15..... There needs to be technical standards to make possible new broadband technologies, such as the use of high-speed communication directly over power lines. Power lines were for electricity; power lines can be used for broadband technology. So the technical standards need to be changed to encourage that. .....the NTIAyesterday (4/27/2004) released a paper which argues AGAINST relaxing Part 15 (see below). Full NTIA report at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fcc...bpl/index.html "Critical review of the assumptions underlying these analyses revealed that application of existing Part 15 compliance measurement procedures for BPL systems results in a significant underestimation of peak field strength. Underestimation of the actual peak field strength is the leading contributor to high interference risks. As applied in current practice to BPL systems, Part 15 measurement guidelines do not address unique physical and electromagnetic characteristics of BPL radiated emissions. Refining compliance measurement procedures for BPL systems will not impede implementation of BPL technology because BPL networks reportedly can be successfully implemented under existing field strength limits. "Accordingly, NTIA does NOT recommend that the FCC relax Part 15 field strength limits for BPL systems. Further based on studies to date, NTIA recommends several "access" BPL compliance measurement provisions that derive from existing Part 15 measurement guidelines. Among these are requirements to: use measurement antenna heights near the height of power lines; measure at a uniform distance of ten (10) meters from the BPL device and power lines; and measure using a calibrated rod antenna or a loop antenna in connection with appropriate factors relating magnetic and electric field strength levels at frequencies below 30 MHz." Sunuvagun, de Hans, K0HB |
"KØHB" wrote ....the NTIAyesterday (4/27/2004) released a paper which argues AGAINST relaxing Part 15 (see below). Full NTIA report at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fcc...bpl/index.html Another excerpt..... "Assuming that co-frequency BPL devices are deployed at a density of one per km^2 within a circular area of 10 km radius, interference to aircraft reception of moderate-to-strong radio signals is likely to occur below 6 km altitude within 12 km of the center of the BPL deployment. Interference likely would occur to aircraft reception of weak-to-moderate radio signals within 40 km of the center of the BPL deployment area." Gee, do ya think we oughta deploy this in Terlingua, Texas, Mr. President? With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB |
GWB said:
And if you're living out in -- I should -- I was going to say Crawford, Texas, but it's not -- maybe not nearly as remote. (Laughter.) How about Terlingua, Texas? Hey, I've been through Terlingua. It's a ghost town outside the west gate of Big Bend National Park near the XE border. They're welcome to BPL! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Lloyd" wrote Doesn't Phil have some errands for you to run? Here's an errand for you, Lloyd --- http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy Meanwhile ..... PLONK another one goes in the Bozo Bin With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB |
"Wes Stewart" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:37:23 -0400, Minnie Bannister wrote: |Yes, the technical standards need to be changed to allow BPL: require |all power lines to be shielded. The ones under ground and under water already are. The problem will be when every house in your neighborhood is a big #&%*(*& radiator. Or even worse when your KW wipes out the entire Internet service in a few square miles. I'm a rural customer of an electric cooperative. (I happen to use them for my dialup ISP also) A couple of years ago when I was having a bout of power line interference I happened to talk to their VP for new technology, engineer to engineer. Among other things he told me that reading meters was a big expense since their service area is huge, covering good parts of three counties, one of which is the size of Connecticut. They (we, I'm a part owner) have 29,000 customers and 2,400 miles of lines. So they (we) tried a system of reading the meters remotely, using (very) slow-speed data on the power lines. They couldn't even solve the technical challenges of doing this and wound up changing out most of the meters to ones with built in transmitters that can be interrogated by a guy driving around in a pickup truck. If they can't read my meter remotely how in the hell are they going to supply me with high-speed data transmission? BTW, I've strongly suggested that they don't try. Tell me about it. Another thing that hasn't been considered is the condition of these lines. I have been fighting for 5 years here in Alabama to get the 20/9 noise level (at times past) fixed. Two years of that was educating the fools what to do about it. Can you imagine how much trouble its going to be getting BPL through that noise? Dan/W4NTI |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com