(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
ect: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/27/2004 8:46 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (N2EY)
Date: 3/26/2004 11:44 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

I consider myself a "professional" too, but I don't remember ahving
been
taught that profanity is an effective means of communication.

How did you make it through the U.S. Marine Corp without ever meeting a
sailor?

What does having served in the U. S. Marine Corps or meeting sailors have
to do with my training and education as a Nurse, Brain?

Steve, K4YZ

I've never met a sailor who could communicate w/o profanity.

Unless you consider "sailoring" to not be a profession.

Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/28/2004 4:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
ect: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/27/2004 8:46 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (N2EY)
Date: 3/26/2004 11:44 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

I consider myself a "professional" too, but I don't remember
ahving
been
taught that profanity is an effective means of communication.

How did you make it through the U.S. Marine Corp without ever meeting a
sailor?

What does having served in the U. S. Marine Corps or meeting sailors
have
to do with my training and education as a Nurse, Brain?

Steve, K4YZ

I've never met a sailor who could communicate w/o profanity.

Then I'd say that your scope of experience was pretty narrow.

Just how many "sailors" do you know, Brain?

Unless you consider "sailoring" to not be a profession.

I am unaware of a profession called "sailoring".

I AM aware of SPECIFIC Naval and Marine Corps regulations that make the use
of profanity "conduct unbecomming", and punishable by Article 15 should the
offended person so desire.

Does it happen? Sure it happens....I've heard ministers swear.

Do they do it in the course of thier professional duites or in public
correspondence?

Nope...Unless you can show me some sort of "official" Naval document
wherein profanity was used as a professional means of communication...?!?!

I'll sit here holding my breath waiting on that one, Brain.

(No I won't...just teasing you...)

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:

So much for "no other method to serve the unserved areas but BPL".

Did anyone actually say that? It's highly inaccurate if they did.

I think the actual buzzphrase is "arease underserved by broadband" or some
such.

The image depicted is that there are large parts of the USA where broadband
access is either unavailable or very expensive. That's partly true - just as
it's true that there are parts of the USA where cable TV is unavailable, and
parts where underground natural gas service is unavailable. Etc.

The *implication* is that BPL will somehow fill in those gaps, but in ost cases
that's not really the case - for the saem reasons competing technologies don;t
serve those areas yet.

I
think there is a vision of just sending the signals over the power lines
and boy howdy, an instant nationwide network, everywhere there is a
power line, "you have mail!"

Exactly.Just like there was a vision of next-generation satellite phones that
would let all of us place phone calls from anywhere in the world via a network
of low-eart-orbit satellites. That vision worked - but it wasn't inexpensive!

In truth, a fiber has to be run to somewhere near the house that is
going to be served, so that means that rural areas will not be any
easier to serve than they are now.

And that's just the first problem. Once the fiber gets there, other competing
technologies could use it, too. Including WiFi, as described by K2ASP.

Then there's the fact that the HF losses on power lines are so high that BPL
systems need a repeater every few thousand feet. In rural areas that may mean a
repeater for each customer, or more. Plus couplers and other hardware for
*each* customer.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:

So much for "no other method to serve the unserved areas but BPL".

Did anyone actually say that? It's highly inaccurate if they did.

I think the actual buzzphrase is "arease underserved by broadband" or some
such.

What's an "arease?"

The image depicted is that there are large parts of the USA where broadband
access is either unavailable or very expensive. That's partly true - just as
it's true that there are parts of the USA where cable TV is unavailable, and
parts where underground natural gas service is unavailable. Etc.

How many people there in those "arease?" How many people
NOT?

The *implication* is that BPL will somehow fill in those gaps, but in ost
cases
that's not really the case - for the saem reasons competing technologies don;t
serve those areas yet.

"Ost" is 'cheese' in Swedish. "Cheese cases?"

"saem?" "don;t?"

I
think there is a vision of just sending the signals over the power lines
and boy howdy, an instant nationwide network, everywhere there is a
power line, "you have mail!"

Exactly.Just like there was a vision of next-generation satellite phones that
would let all of us place phone calls from anywhere in the world via a network
of low-eart-orbit satellites. That vision worked - but it wasn't inexpensive!

In truth, a fiber has to be run to somewhere near the house that is
going to be served, so that means that rural areas will not be any
easier to serve than they are now.

And that's just the first problem. Once the fiber gets there, other competing
technologies could use it, too. Including WiFi, as described by K2ASP.

Service providers can't broadcast it? There's an IEEE standard
on it, same main number as "WiFi" (which is wired) but different
decimal numbers. 30 mile range. Not in HF.

Then there's the fact that the HF losses on power lines are so high that BPL
systems need a repeater every few thousand feet. In rural areas that may mean
a
repeater for each customer, or more. Plus couplers and other hardware for
*each* customer.

What "fact," senior? Where did you see a detailed technical description
of Access BPL that stated that "fact?" Fill us all in with all this
broadband expertise of yours.

Where in the United States are electric power distribution lines
standardized as HF transmission lines? That's not in the NEC,
either NEC.

You have technical experience in wired repeaters? Ellucidate.

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


N2EY wrote:


So much for "no other method to serve the unserved areas but BPL".


Did anyone actually say that? It's highly inaccurate if they did.


I think the actual buzzphrase is "arease underserved by broadband" or some
such.

Not areas "undeserved" by broadband? ;^)

The image depicted is that there are large parts of the USA where broadband
access is either unavailable or very expensive. That's partly true - just as
it's true that there are parts of the USA where cable TV is unavailable, and
parts where underground natural gas service is unavailable. Etc.

The *implication* is that BPL will somehow fill in those gaps, but in ost cases
that's not really the case - for the saem reasons competing technologies don;t
serve those areas yet.

I find it exceptionally misleading that people are being allowed to
believe that the signals are just going to travel by the power lines
from start to finish.


I
think there is a vision of just sending the signals over the power lines
and boy howdy, an instant nationwide network, everywhere there is a
power line, "you have mail!"


Exactly.Just like there was a vision of next-generation satellite phones that
would let all of us place phone calls from anywhere in the world via a network
of low-eart-orbit satellites. That vision worked - but it wasn't inexpensive!


In truth, a fiber has to be run to somewhere near the house that is
going to be served, so that means that rural areas will not be any
easier to serve than they are now.


And that's just the first problem. Once the fiber gets there, other competing
technologies could use it, too. Including WiFi, as described by K2ASP.


Or just do the right thing, and run the silly signal the rest of the way
into the house via accepted and technically astute methods.

note: I'm making a bit of an assumption that this can be done.


Then there's the fact that the HF losses on power lines are so high that BPL
systems need a repeater every few thousand feet. In rural areas that may mean a
repeater for each customer, or more. Plus couplers and other hardware for
*each* customer.

I wonder how the costs compare between a BPL line system and a cable
system?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Then there's the fact that the HF losses on power lines are so high that
BPL
systems need a repeater every few thousand feet. In rural areas that may
mean a
repeater for each customer, or more. Plus couplers and other hardware for
*each* customer.

The slides I've seen presented by BPL marketing fluff folks show repeaters
every
300 meters ... that's a hell of a lot of repeaters to "serve rural America"
.... yet they
claimed in the same presentation that it was "low cost because no
infrastructure was
required because the wires were already (presumably) there."

I pointed to their block diagrams with fiber to the area, "head-ends" to go
from fiber
to the MV/HV lines, repeaters every 300 meters, couplers, etc. and asked
"How can
you claim with a straight face that this "doesn't require the installation
of infrastructure?""

Carl - wk3c

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/28/2004 4:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
ect: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/27/2004 8:46 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (N2EY)
Date: 3/26/2004 11:44 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

I consider myself a "professional" too, but I don't remember
ahving
been
taught that profanity is an effective means of communication.

How did you make it through the U.S. Marine Corp without ever meeting a
sailor?

What does having served in the U. S. Marine Corps or meeting sailors
have
to do with my training and education as a Nurse, Brain?

Steve, K4YZ

I've never met a sailor who could communicate w/o profanity.

Then I'd say that your scope of experience was pretty narrow.

Just how many "sailors" do you know, Brain?

Unless you consider "sailoring" to not be a profession.

I am unaware of a profession called "sailoring".

I AM aware of SPECIFIC Naval and Marine Corps regulations that make the use
of profanity "conduct unbecomming", and punishable by Article 15 should the
offended person so desire.

Too bad we don't have a "conduct unbecoming" regulation.

You'd spend all of your time at Captain's Mast rather than harassing
and stalking others.

Does it happen? Sure it happens....I've heard ministers swear.

Tell me about that misister's non-judicial punishment.

No, document it.

Do they do it in the course of thier professional duites or in public
correspondence?

Yes. No.

Nope...Unless you can show me some sort of "official" Naval document
wherein profanity was used as a professional means of communication...?!?!

You don't show verbal comments, they are not official navy
"documents."

I'll sit here holding my breath waiting on that one, Brain.

(No I won't...just teasing you...)

darn

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Phil Kane wrote:

On 25 Mar 2004 09:13:23 -0800, N2EY wrote:



I hope that's true. Note how vague the NPRM language is about how
interference is to be mitigated.


That's because there are less and less "old timers" on the staff who
know how to chase down and evaluate such interference and a general
reluctance of the non-field people to shut someone off the air
because of same.

The long slippery slope started when the agency started privatizing
things such as frequency coordination and interference resolution in
the mid 1980s.......

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the old standard of Part 15
devices having to tolerate interception of lawful signals gets
thrown in the trashcan. That's what having policy set on
less-than-technically-knowlegeable grounds can result in. It's the
equivalent of ordering that all antennas be installed underground
to preserve aesthetic standards.


There would almost have to be a exemption specifically for BPL access,
because if the whole of part 15 was chucked, then the part 15 devices
would be able to interfere with each other, but nothing could be done
about it.


Isn't that the case now? If my computer monitor interferes with my cordless
phone, can I insist that FCC fix the problem? Just try!

I read them as both part 15 devices, and they have to put up with each
other's interference. Hopefully the manufacturers making the junk will
either redesign or go out of business.


All the things that can radiate in the HF spectrum and interfere with
or be interfered with by BPL are a large list. And if part 15 is gone,
then they won't have to worry about RFI protection in design any more so
the list will grow...


But will a device that meets Part 15 "30 meter" specifications interfere with
BPL? I don't think so.


Not sure here Jim.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Then there's the fact that the HF losses on power lines are so high that

BPL

systems need a repeater every few thousand feet. In rural areas that may

mean a

repeater for each customer, or more. Plus couplers and other hardware for
*each* customer.


The slides I've seen presented by BPL marketing fluff folks show repeaters
every
300 meters ... that's a hell of a lot of repeaters to "serve rural America"
... yet they
claimed in the same presentation that it was "low cost because no
infrastructure was
required because the wires were already (presumably) there."

I pointed to their block diagrams with fiber to the area, "head-ends" to go
from fiber
to the MV/HV lines, repeaters every 300 meters, couplers, etc. and asked
"How can
you claim with a straight face that this "doesn't require the installation
of infrastructure?""


Good work!

Right there is the evidence that the proponents are being less than
accurate in their portrayal of BPL.

Since BPL is slower than some other broadband services, and the
infrastructure appears to be similar to running fiber, is the slowing
attributed to the "existing infrastructure" part of the line?

I'm ignorant of the finer details of BPL, so I may be way off here.

Seems like if they have to run fiber, and do all the repeaters, etc.
why not just........ run fiber and put the signals into the houses as
they should be?

Any good sources of the nitty-gritty of BPL technology?

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Then there's the fact that the HF losses on power lines are so high that

BPL

systems need a repeater every few thousand feet. In rural areas that may

mean a

repeater for each customer, or more. Plus couplers and other hardware for
*each* customer.


The slides I've seen presented by BPL marketing fluff folks show repeaters
every
300 meters ... that's a hell of a lot of repeaters to "serve rural America"
... yet they
claimed in the same presentation that it was "low cost because no
infrastructure was
required because the wires were already (presumably) there."

I pointed to their block diagrams with fiber to the area, "head-ends" to go
from fiber
to the MV/HV lines, repeaters every 300 meters, couplers, etc. and asked
"How can
you claim with a straight face that this "doesn't require the installation
of infrastructure?""


Good work!

Right there is the evidence that the proponents are being less than
accurate in their portrayal of BPL.

Actually, no more "inaccurate" than any other MARKETING and PR
group for any communications carrier service.

There is NO factual, detailed technical description available in the
electronics or communications industry trade publications about any
proposed or in-test Access BPL system.

The public doesn't know the conducted BPL signal levels, doesn't
know the (presumably) tested losses along electric power distribution
lines, the BPL coupler and other interface equipment losses. Nor is
there any specific data on the range of impedance/admittance of
installed electric power lines throughout the USA. Those electric
power lines were NEVER standardized to be RF transmission lines.

Without detailed information to make judgements from, there is no
telling what the RF radiation levels might be. It is obvious from
monitoring installed test systems that it DOES radiate RF over
a broad spectrum.

Since BPL is slower than some other broadband services, and the
infrastructure appears to be similar to running fiber, is the slowing
attributed to the "existing infrastructure" part of the line?

Not a good question since there is not enough detail to determine
any data rate.

Access BPL is essentially a very new way to distribute data. From
the allegedly-needed bandwidth requirements covering most of HF
and part of VHF spectrum, the fastest data rate could be greater
than 10 Megabits per second, certainly faster than a T1 line at
1.54 MBPS. Without any detailed system information it is very
broad conjecture.

I'm ignorant of the finer details of BPL, so I may be way off here.

So are we all. :-(

Seems like if they have to run fiber, and do all the repeaters, etc.
why not just........ run fiber and put the signals into the houses as
they should be?

Good question.

Any good sources of the nitty-gritty of BPL technology?

Look at the websites for industry magazines EDN, Electronic Design,
and RFDESIGN, even Microwaves & RF. I get all four and there's
not been any nitty-gritty data yet. Lots of PR generalities.

As an IEEE Life Member, I get their membership magazine free each
month and SPECTRUM is well-regarded as giving detailed explains
on many electronic systems. Excellent articles, informative. None
there yet. The SPECTRUM is on-line and with free access at
www.ieee.org.

A website search turns up most of the BPL proponents' sites but
you won't find any details there, just the same PR slide-show
material they showed to the FCC.

The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology isn't telling. They
might not know any more than anyone else, hence their NOI of
last year.

Access BPL is going to be bad for HF. We just don't know HOW
bad. Kiss your HF receiver sensitivity ratings goodbye...it won't
matter if BPL goes past your house.

LHA / WMD