"pete" wrote in message
news:01c38953$b4e4f2e0$211488cf@verrando...
The more users that demand high-bandwidth access, the more avenues the
industry must exploit to meet demand.
I suppose the MW/HF spectrum could be "given over" to BPL,
supplementing DSL and cable to deliver broadband for non-mobile users. 30
mHz is plenty, especially with compression methods constantly improving.
BPL doesn't need to supply all of a community's broadband needs, it's just
part of a larger system.


There's gigahertz of bandwidth. Another 30 MHz is like spit in the ocean.
Even a compressed ocean.


As with carrier-current AM, you don't need an antenna. Inject the rf
at the breaker panel of any building, and service that whole building
with
broadband via the power outlets. Interference from natural sources is not
an issue, because the signal is not "broadcasted". Would it wipe out the
ability to use an AM/SW radio in that building? Of course. But a listener
no longer needs an analog AM radio to listen to radio programming.


OK, I got the impression the post was about giving MW/HF over for access
rather than incidental radiation. I don't see any necessity for systems
that have excess radiation.

If there's any real value to broadband access, then the home owner should be
happy to pay for shielded cableing inside the house. It's no more expensive
than cable TV. Plenty of people use thier cable TV service for broadband
access. What would the average person pay to have telephone or electric
service installed in thier home? Hundreds? Thousands? It's well worth it.
What would they pay for broadband? As we can see, not much. And the only
reason this goofy BPL system is around is because it promises to be cheap
enough for people who don't think broadband is particularly valuable. Of
course, we radio hobbyists get to pay a hidden cost in RFI.


I suppose VHF-UHF can deliver local broadcasting digitally for both
fixed and mobile reception. Higher frequencies can deliver cell, digital
2-way, broadcast (such as XM) and broadband wireless data via cell sites
and satellite.

But that assumes that incidental radaition is a necessity. It's just a
byproduct of cheesy shortcuts!

Why would any AM broadcaster want to give up the identity of an established
frequency? They identify themselves with such terms as AM-1000 or Radio 720
more often than they use their callsigns. And, given the history of
failure in the new bands such as the UHF TV or FM bands in the 50s or the
current digital band in Canada, is there any reason for them to move? The
joys of cellphone audio, perhaps?


The farthest any terrestrial antenna would ever need to radiate is a
couple
of miles!

Electrical costs or otherwise, broadcasters would be thrilled to retire
their transmitter sites. Good-bye insurance, tower maintenence,
replacement
tubes, land leases, ground radials, lightning strikes, vandals,
generators,
rodents, bullet holes, cell tower de-tuning, and old-fart RF consulting
engineers making $300 an hour. Just ask Clear Channel.

Pete
KQ5I



Isn't the talent still their biggest expense? And aren't some of them an
even bigger headache? What might the Rush Limbaugh fiasco cost Clear
Channel? Business is full of problems.


Is this the plan you're suggesting -- Forcing half an industry to pull up
stakes because the cheap-ass goofy BPL system radiates too much? And moving
them up to cellphone land because so many people think broadband isn't worth
the cost to do right?

Have you run this plan by the folk at Clear Channel?

Frank Dresser