Subject: response to UPLC new release/comments on BPL
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 7/2/2004 8:09 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Even if a person is completely ignorant of how BPL works, wouldn't the
average person get a little suspicious when we are told that it doesn't
interfere, and then a few lines later, we are told of mitigation
methods? If it doesn't interfere, there is no need for interference
mitigation.

"Mitigation" is four syllables, Mike, so right away you lost half the
population's ability to make any sense of it...

Few will notice or appreciate that disparity you point out, even though
it's a very valid one...Just like the folks who ignore the "Part 15" caveat on
thier "consumer electroics" devices at home who get "stepped on" by a licensed
transmitter ("those !@#$%^ hams"...regardless of what service is the culprit)
and then demand the FCC "do something" about "them".

UPLC will manage to loud-mouth thier plan into deployment...They will
forego any really adequate shielding, in OR out, and then the "consumer" will
be left barking about how badly it works.

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:

| UPLC will manage to loud-mouth thier plan into deployment...They
| will forego any really adequate shielding, in OR out, and then the
| "consumer" will be left barking about how badly it works.

What possible sort of shielding could there be?

Well, you could put a shield around each wire. In fact, they have a
word for that sort of thing -- coax. Or you could move the wires
closer together -- that wouldn't shield anything, but it would
decrease the radiation. Or twist the cables together like twisted
pair -- but that would require some sort of insulation on the wire.

All of these methods are many many many times more expensive than just
running coax or fiber alongside the power line and using that for
data.

Or is there some sort of magic, yet cheap, shielding that they could
do that I'm just not aware of?

--
Doug McLaren,
Why don't cannibals eat clowns? They taste funny.

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: response to UPLC new release/comments on BPL
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 7/2/2004 8:09 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Even if a person is completely ignorant of how BPL works, wouldn't the
average person get a little suspicious when we are told that it doesn't
interfere, and then a few lines later, we are told of mitigation
methods? If it doesn't interfere, there is no need for interference
mitigation.

"Mitigation" is four syllables, Mike, so right away you lost half the
population's ability to make any sense of it...

"Republican" is four syllables, too.....;-)

Few will notice or appreciate that disparity you point out, even though
it's a very valid one...Just like the folks who ignore the "Part 15" caveat
on
thier "consumer electroics" devices at home who get "stepped on" by a
licensed
transmitter ("those !@#$%^ hams"...regardless of what service is the culprit)
and then demand the FCC "do something" about "them".

That's because they're not educated about how things work. Of course, education
costs time and money, and educated customers are harder to please.

UPLC will manage to loud-mouth thier plan into deployment...They will
forego any really adequate shielding, in OR out, and then the "consumer" will
be left barking about how badly it works.

Which may ultimately prove their undoing.

Let's do a little survey: What options are available where you live, and at
what price?

Here in Radnor, besides dialup, I can choose cable access at $42.95/month, or
DSL access at as low as $29.95/month. No BPL, thankfully.

How about others?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Even if a person is completely ignorant of how BPL works, wouldn't the
average person get a little suspicious when we are told that it doesn't
interfere, and then a few lines later, we are told of mitigation
methods? If it doesn't interfere, there is no need for interference
mitigation.

You would think so, but that's not how it works.

Take cell phones. How many "average people" really know the most basic things
about how they work? I'm not talking about CDMA or even analog vs. digital, but
just the idea that they are little radio transceivers? Look at the people
opposing cell towers as "sources of radiation" - yet demanding perfect
coverage, and holding the dern things next to their heads for many minutes per
day. Note how the solutions that have evolved have included disguised sites,
and the use of more cells with reduced coverage. "Inverse square law"?
Puhleeze!

Why do you think the 'phone folks revived the term "wireless"?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Even if a person is completely ignorant of how BPL works, wouldn't the
average person get a little suspicious when we are told that it doesn't
interfere, and then a few lines later, we are told of mitigation
methods? If it doesn't interfere, there is no need for interference
mitigation.

You would think so, but that's not how it works.

Take cell phones. How many "average people" really know the most basic things
about how they work? I'm not talking about CDMA or even analog vs. digital,
but
just the idea that they are little radio transceivers? Look at the people
opposing cell towers as "sources of radiation" - yet demanding perfect
coverage, and holding the dern things next to their heads for many minutes per
day. Note how the solutions that have evolved have included disguised sites,
and the use of more cells with reduced coverage. "Inverse square law"?
Puhleeze!

Why do you think the 'phone folks revived the term "wireless"?

Because the "'phone folks" did NOT "revive" it.

The term "wireless" of modern use came from the LAN people,
those who design and make Local Area Networks. The first
LANs were WIRED. Wiring can be expensive and cumbersome in
most areas so the LAN folks brought in low-power RF linking, or
"wireless LANs." That was popular and grew.

"Wireless" as the word is used now is almost anything not needing
wires to connect audio, video, or data over short distances.

An automobile was once referred to as a "horseless buggy." That
kind of description hasn't been in use much in either today's
society nor even that of my childhood. For the same reason,
modern society does NOT think of "wireless' as anything like the
old 1920s term of radio.

If the "'phone folks" called cellular anything, it was "mobile."
It still is and many industry folks refer to it as "mobile,"
synonymous with "cell" and "cellular."

[count on another argument and ignitor of potential flame wars
concerning the above...some folks don't stop at mere facts in
here when it comes to wanting to fight...:-) ]

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Even if a person is completely ignorant of how BPL works, wouldn't the
average person get a little suspicious when we are told that it doesn't
interfere, and then a few lines later, we are told of mitigation
methods? If it doesn't interfere, there is no need for interference
mitigation.

You would think so, but that's not how it works.

Take cell phones. How many "average people" really know the most basic
things
about how they work? I'm not talking about CDMA or even analog vs. digital,
but
just the idea that they are little radio transceivers? Look at the people
opposing cell towers as "sources of radiation" - yet demanding perfect
coverage, and holding the dern things next to their heads for many minutes
per
day. Note how the solutions that have evolved have included disguised sites,
and the use of more cells with reduced coverage. "Inverse square law"?
Puhleeze!

Why do you think the 'phone folks revived the term "wireless"?

Because the "'phone folks" did NOT "revive" it.

Yes, they did.

The term "wireless" of modern use came from the LAN people,
those who design and make Local Area Networks. The first
LANs were WIRED.

I know, Len, I've run the wires for them.

Wiring can be expensive and cumbersome in
most areas so the LAN folks brought in low-power RF linking, or
"wireless LANs." That was popular and grew.

So?

"Wireless" as the word is used now is almost anything not needing
wires to connect audio, video, or data over short distances.

Why not use the word "radio"?

An automobile was once referred to as a "horseless buggy."

Horseless carriage.

That
kind of description hasn't been in use much in either today's
society nor even that of my childhood.

Really?

For the same reason,
modern society does NOT think of "wireless' as anything like the
old 1920s term of radio.

No.

"Radio" was known as "wireless" as a shortened version of "wireless telegraph"
or "wireless telephone". The term stuck around much longer in British
Commonwealth countries - well into WW2 at least.

If the "'phone folks" called cellular anything, it was "mobile."
It still is and many industry folks refer to it as "mobile,"
synonymous with "cell" and "cellular."

Maybe where you are. But around here the term "wireless" is used
interchangeably.

The point is that they avoided the use of the word "radio". "Wireless" sounds
new and exciting to people who don't know it's a recycled term.

[count on another argument and ignitor of potential flame wars
concerning the above...some folks don't stop at mere facts in
here when it comes to wanting to fight...:-) ]

You must have written that looking in the mirror, Len, because you never let
the facts stand in your way...