"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com...
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Dave,

What amazes me is that this *one* interest (the power companies with BPL)
may well be allowed to wreck havoc with many (far more than just amateur,
which is what some folks think) users. I'm not even sure how
inexpensively
BPL could be rolled out in a rural area. They would either need some kind
of boosters or run a *lot* of rf power at the source. Maybe I'm wrong,
but
my thinking is that BPL would likely be targeted at suburbs where many
might
live too far away for DSL, but the distribution costs for BPL might not be
too much.

The marketing hype is cheap broadband for the rural areas. Economic reality
is that it will probably never be extended into the rural areas even if some
suburban areas do go for it. Every single transformer between the injection
point of the signal and the end user must be bypassed with the BPL signal
for that signal to work. If you only have one user every few miles, it will
never pay off. And of course you've mentioned the power and/or signal
boosters required. Periodic boosters all along the line will be needed.

It's worse than that Dee.

Power lines used for BPL will have very significant losses per block
or however you might measure it and there is a distinct limit to the
number of amplifiers which can be used per injection point. Bottom
line is that BPL won't work unless it's periodically and frequently
fed by a fiber optic or cable TV type "primary source", a backbone.
The BPL system currently being installed in Manassas VA will make use
of a municipally-funded fiber optic backbone.

The simple fact of the matter is that BPL will not happen in the
boonies unless it's fed into the boonies on some sort of backbone. So
if Farmer Jones doesn't already have cable TV, DSL/ISDN or fiber optic
service available the probability of Jones getting a BPL feed is nil.
The FCC commissioners who are hyping BPL are either stupid beyond
belief or are lying thru their teeth.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

w3rv

"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...
The simple fact of the matter is that BPL will not happen in the
boonies unless it's fed into the boonies on some sort of backbone. So
if Farmer Jones doesn't already have cable TV, DSL/ISDN or fiber optic
service available the probability of Jones getting a BPL feed is nil.
The FCC commissioners who are hyping BPL are either stupid beyond
belief or are lying thru their teeth.

w3rv

If not "stupid beyond belief", then they just aren't bothering to read up on
the realities of implementation.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

Power lines used for BPL will have very significant losses per block
or however you might measure it and there is a distinct limit to the
number of amplifiers which can be used per injection point. Bottom
line is that BPL won't work unless it's periodically and frequently
fed by a fiber optic or cable TV type "primary source", a backbone.
The BPL system currently being installed in Manassas VA will make use
of a municipally-funded fiber optic backbone.

Of course - BPL is just a way of getting that "last mile". Avoids having to go
into people's houses and businesses and run wire, which is a serious cost and
liability issue, to say nothing of consumer resistance. Putting bypass couplers
on the pole pig is easy compared to running wire in a customer's house.

The big sell points are "no installatio! Just plug it in!" and the extreme
portability. "Every power socket in your house is now a broadband internet
connection" - "easier than dialup!" etc.

Of course the same is true of the various 802.11 alphabet soup systems coming
out too - and those are faster!

The simple fact of the matter is that BPL will not happen in the
boonies unless it's fed into the boonies on some sort of backbone. So
if Farmer Jones doesn't already have cable TV, DSL/ISDN or fiber optic
service available the probability of Jones getting a BPL feed is nil.

Exactly. And for the same reasons: the customer density is too low.

Y'know, all those deregulators need some history lessons. A lot of
infrastructure was built as govt' projects or as govt. edicts because the ROI
was too low. Remember the REA - Rural Electrification Authority?

The FCC commissioners who are hyping BPL are either stupid beyond
belief or are lying thru their teeth.

None of them are engineers - they're "regulators". And they're tasked by your
buddy Shrub to come up with whizbang technocures like hydrogen fuel and BPL.
Right!

And Ralph Nader is going to run again. GEts worse every day.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:53:38 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

If not "stupid beyond belief", then they [ The Five Tubeless Tyres ]
just aren't bothering to read up on the realities of implementation.

They've gotten The Word from much higher than the Commission or
NTIA or even DoD.

It will be interesting to see who the movers and shakers (read:
investors and controllers) of the BPL business are when the
inevitable Congressional inquiry is forced to take place.

"No Millionaire Left Behind" ???

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
a.k.a. Peter J. Paranoid

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:


You see, if an unlicensed transmitter is going to put some electric field
into my receiver, I simply want to return the favor - with interest.


Of course. "Interest."

Feel free to "return favors" to cardiac patients using pacemakers and
other medical devices using RF coupling. Mama Dee says that sort
of thing is LEGAL because YOU HAVE A LICENSE and the federal
AUTHORIZATION to do such.

Feel free to generate TVI with your authorized amateur radio license
even though broadcast TV is also authorized. "Return with interest."
I'll bet Mama Dee will say that is perfectly legal, too.

Feel free to spritz your neighbors with RF 24/7. You are authorized to
transmit and it is so difficult to measure EM radiation levels by
amateurs. "Return with interest" all the irritation they caused you.

"Interest" in amateur radio.

LHA / WMD

So just how would Dave's 10 meter beacon generate TVI, interfere with
pacemakers or other medical devices? There are many 10 meter beacons in
operation, are they doing all this interference you blabber about? How
about all the hams using 10 meters and all the other ham frequencies on
a daily basis? Are they knocking out cardiac patients who have pacemakers.

Too bad you were never able to pass the ham exam, then you would know
better than to make the absurd statements you do, just chalk it up to
someone too old for his time I guess.

If BPL gets rolling in my neck of the woods, I will probably put up a 10
meter beacon as well, all legal. You wanna make something of it?

Len Over 21 wrote:




Ah so, the federal authorization magically makes all amateurs into
technical experts who KNOW things all through answering a few

Something that is obviously beyond you capabilities. You sure have a
hard on for those who have had the smarts enough to pass the amateur
exam and get a license. Poor lennyboy, just can't hack it.

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
William wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

You have a rare ability to see the facts spread out before you and to
come to an incorrect conclusion. There was nothing I wrote which would
make me an ally of anyone in a "scheme to interfere".

I pointed out some reality. I asked a question.


Dave, whenever I come across something posted here that lacks "good
amateur practice," your name pops up.

It would appear that my name pops up because you attempt to make an
association where none exists. I'm not involved in a scheme.

If you say so (wink).

I did,
however, ask you how a licensed service can intentionally interfere with
a non-licensed producer of RF. You've not yet come up with a response.

The same way you can communicate with French who had no license to
operate where they were operating.

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(William) writes:

Dear Beeping Bill:

How can a licensed user intentionally interfere with an unlicensed user?

Why an NOI and now an NPRM for such a Part 15 device?

The rules will change.

State Department Dave lives in a different reality and isn't quite up to
speed on FCC abbreviations. An "NPRM" is a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making but big Dave thinks the rules are already in place.

Mama Dee lives in another reality where she thinks it is perfectly
legal for any licensed amateur to deliberately interfere with
unlicensed electronics.

The gunnery nurse is on a peak of his manic-depressive cycle
again and busy trying to peddle it to a single destination in his
twilight zone.

tRoll keeps slipping in his macro butter. The Katapult King is off
on an old-radio bender (better than shooting bears for the navy).
Now Hampton wants to get agressive against an enemy of radio
that hasn't been installed everywhere.

To them there are Monsters Under The Bed everywhere (not
realizing they are looking into mirrors when saying that).

I think that all the regulars ought to go on back to tawking about all
them amateur radio policy subjects like trolleys, muscle cars for
orion-sitters, old radio broadcast stations, making fun of the U.S.
military, making fun of others not liking them, architects, show biz
folk, and the legality of federally licensed amateurs to do anything
because they are Federally Authorized..

What with all those multiple copies of TAFKA Rev Jim's (which "is
not his fault" even though I don't get such repeats on other news-
groups or other problems with AOL), it's not worth staying in here.
Except to see the creativity in rationalizing they are always correct
and all others are mistaken.

LHA / WMD


These people are dysfunctional.

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:

You see, if an unlicensed transmitter is going to put some electric field
into my receiver, I simply want to return the favor - with interest.

Of course. "Interest".

Lennie, is there some reason you can take time to antagonize and
muck-rake through other threads, but you cannot answer a question put
directly to you?

Steve, K4YZ

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(William) writes:

Dear Beeping Bill:

How can a licensed user intentionally interfere with an unlicensed user?

Why an NOI and now an NPRM for such a Part 15 device?

The rules will change.

State Department Dave lives in a different reality and isn't quite up to
speed on FCC abbreviations. An "NPRM" is a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making but big Dave thinks the rules are already in place.

More sniping from the NG Putz.

Lennie, is there some reason you can take time to antagonize and
muck-rake through other threads, but you cannot answer a question put
directly to you?

Steve, K4YZ