Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 | +----------------------------------------------+ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Wes Stewart" wrote in message news 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
BPL Comments of President Bush in Minneapolis on April 26th | Dx | |||
BPL Comments of President Bush in Minneapolis on April 26th | General | |||
BPL Comments of President Bush in Minneapolis on April 26th | Dx | |||
Here is My Resume. Who Am I? | General | |||
Bush Caters to the Extremist Right Wing | General |