FCC Commissioner ''gushes'' over BPL
 

FCC COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY SEES BROADBAND-OVER-
POWERLINE TECHNOLOGY AS A COMPONENT OF "BROADBAND NIRVANA"


On September 22, 2003, FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy
delivered a speech to the United PowerLine Council's Annual
Conference in which she heavily promoted broadband-over-powerline
("BPL") technology. Rarely has an FCC Commissioner presented
such a one-sided address, not mentioning the likelihood that BPL
will cause massive interference to licensed radio services.
Ms. Abernathy's entire speech (as prepared for delivery) and a
summary of the response of one organization are posted at:


http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-239079A1.doc
and
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/09/25/100/?nc=1


A BBC R&D White Paper entitled, "The Effects of Power-Line
Telecommunications on Broadcast Reception: Brief Trial in Crieff"
is available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp067.html.

(CGC Communicator articles may be reproduced in any form
provided they are unaltered and credit is given to the CGC
Communicator and the originating authors, when named. Past
issues may be viewed and searched at http://www.bext.com/_CGC/
courtesy of Bext Corporation. )

She needs some major mental ex-lax to clear her mind.
"David" wrote in message
...
FCC COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY SEES BROADBAND-OVER-
POWERLINE TECHNOLOGY AS A COMPONENT OF "BROADBAND NIRVANA"


On September 22, 2003, FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy
delivered a speech to the United PowerLine Council's Annual
Conference in which she heavily promoted broadband-over-powerline
("BPL") technology. Rarely has an FCC Commissioner presented
such a one-sided address, not mentioning the likelihood that BPL
will cause massive interference to licensed radio services.
Ms. Abernathy's entire speech (as prepared for delivery) and a
summary of the response of one organization are posted at:


http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-239079A1.doc
and
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/09/25/100/?nc=1


A BBC R&D White Paper entitled, "The Effects of Power-Line
Telecommunications on Broadcast Reception: Brief Trial in Crieff"
is available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp067.html.

(CGC Communicator articles may be reproduced in any form
provided they are unaltered and credit is given to the CGC
Communicator and the originating authors, when named. Past
issues may be viewed and searched at http://www.bext.com/_CGC/
courtesy of Bext Corporation. )

"David" wrote in message
...
FCC COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY SEES BROADBAND-OVER-
POWERLINE TECHNOLOGY AS A COMPONENT OF "BROADBAND NIRVANA"


On September 22, 2003, FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy
delivered a speech to the United PowerLine Council's Annual
Conference in which she heavily promoted broadband-over-powerline
("BPL") technology. Rarely has an FCC Commissioner presented
such a one-sided address, not mentioning the likelihood that BPL
will cause massive interference to licensed radio services.
Ms. Abernathy's entire speech (as prepared for delivery) and a
summary of the response of one organization are posted at:


http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-239079A1.doc
and
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/09/25/100/?nc=1


[snip]

Is broadband itself worth gushing over? Around here, broadband is supposed
to be 10 times faster at maybe twice the price. On paper, broadband looks
like a pretty good deal compared to two line setup in which one line is used
mostly for dial-up. Still, dial-up is doing quite well. Dial-up suits me
fine, at least for now.

So, just what is broadband nirvana?

Frank Dresser

Ain't that the self-service robbery ? Just walk up, stuff wheel barrow loads
of money in it and go back to get some more ...

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/abernathy/mail.html


"helmsman" wrote in message
...
David wrote:

FCC COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY SEES BROADBAND-OVER-
POWERLINE TECHNOLOGY AS A COMPONENT OF "BROADBAND NIRVANA"

Anyone got her ( personal on the job) e-mail address ? ;')
.
9.11.2001
Never Forget.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:43:12 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:


So, just what is broadband nirvana?

It's appeal is mostly for high graphics content websites (porn) and
newsgroup binaries (porn, Software, MP3's) which BTW have all largely
fueled the growth of the Internet.

This is not to say broadband is its own right is a bad thing. In some
areas such as Vermont, local calls are expensive. Here broadband
widely apeals because it costs the same as dialup when you add in
local call charges to link to the ISP.

mike

Frank Dresser wrote:


"David" wrote in message
...
FCC COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY SEES BROADBAND-OVER-
POWERLINE TECHNOLOGY AS A COMPONENT OF "BROADBAND NIRVANA"


On September 22, 2003, FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy
delivered a speech to the United PowerLine Council's Annual
Conference in which she heavily promoted broadband-over-powerline
("BPL") technology. Rarely has an FCC Commissioner presented
such a one-sided address, not mentioning the likelihood that BPL
will cause massive interference to licensed radio services.
Ms. Abernathy's entire speech (as prepared for delivery) and a
summary of the response of one organization are posted at:


http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-239079A1.doc
and
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/09/25/100/?nc=1


[snip]

Is broadband itself worth gushing over? Around here, broadband is supposed
to be 10 times faster at maybe twice the price. On paper, broadband looks
like a pretty good deal compared to two line setup in which one line is used
mostly for dial-up. Still, dial-up is doing quite well. Dial-up suits me
fine, at least for now.

So, just what is broadband nirvana?

Hollywood sewage at 5 times its current speed into every room of your
home 24/7! Profitable yes, but desirable? It reminds me of a cartoon of
a couple watching HDTV and the guy says "It's still 500 channels of
trash" and the woman responds "Yeah, but look at how well it comes in!".
:)

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:39:06 -0500, tommyknocker wrote
(in message ):

Frank Dresser wrote:


"David" wrote in message
...
FCC COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY SEES BROADBAND-OVER-
POWERLINE TECHNOLOGY AS A COMPONENT OF "BROADBAND NIRVANA"


On September 22, 2003, FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy
delivered a speech to the United PowerLine Council's Annual
Conference in which she heavily promoted broadband-over-powerline
("BPL") technology. Rarely has an FCC Commissioner presented
such a one-sided address, not mentioning the likelihood that BPL
will cause massive interference to licensed radio services.
Ms. Abernathy's entire speech (as prepared for delivery) and a
summary of the response of one organization are posted at:


http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-239079A1.doc
and
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/09/25/100/?nc=1


[snip]

Is broadband itself worth gushing over? Around here, broadband is supposed
to be 10 times faster at maybe twice the price. On paper, broadband looks
like a pretty good deal compared to two line setup in which one line is
used
mostly for dial-up. Still, dial-up is doing quite well. Dial-up suits me
fine, at least for now.

So, just what is broadband nirvana?

Hollywood sewage at 5 times its current speed into every room of your
home 24/7! Profitable yes, but desirable? It reminds me of a cartoon of
a couple watching HDTV and the guy says "It's still 500 channels of
trash" and the woman responds "Yeah, but look at how well it comes in!".



That's an update on:

First Person: "The food here is so horrible."
Second Person: "And the portions are so small."



Gray Shockley
-----------------------
DX-392 DX-398
RX-320 DX-399
CCradio w/RS Loop
Torus Tuner (3-13 MHz)
Select-A-Tenna
-----------------------
Vicksburg, MS US

"mike" wrote in message
...

It's appeal is mostly for high graphics content websites (porn) and
newsgroup binaries (porn, Software, MP3's) which BTW have all largely
fueled the growth of the Internet.

This is not to say broadband is its own right is a bad thing. In some
areas such as Vermont, local calls are expensive. Here broadband
widely apeals because it costs the same as dialup when you add in
local call charges to link to the ISP.

mike


Yeah, right now, it seems broadband doesn't become really attractive until
it gets price competitive with dial-up.


The "Broadband Nirvana" comment reminded me of a silly article I read which
claimed the high tech recession was due to old fashioned regulation holding
back broadband access. Maybe regulation was holding back the manufacturers
and suppliers in the broadband industry, but, as I remember, he also implied
that the US economy really needed broadband somehow. He wasn't specific as
to how. It just did.

The FCC commissioners are taking that tone, as well. Broadband must be ten
times better than dial-up because -- well, just because. And the
commissioners won't be caught roadblocking the future.

But right now, for lots of people, the internet works just fine with
dial-up. They won't contribute ten times as much to the economy with
broadband. They won't be ten times as entertained. The connection sits
idle most of the time, anyway. Broadband won't be a necessity until there's
something better than the usual e-mail, chat rooms and lite internet surfing
people do.

In a way, it looks similiar to the way most of the new UHF TV and FM radio
stations struggled in the early 50s. There was a huge increase in
bandwidth, but there was little extra to fill it with. People got what they
wanted from their AM radios and VHF TVs. It took about 25 years before the
extra bandwidth was filled.

I was at the library and found a book called "SST here it comes - ready or
not!" So I checked it out. Figured it would be good for a laugh, at least.
Actually it was a pretty good book. The author was an avation writer who
gave a good accounting of the SST debate of 1969 or so. Of course, we
abandoned the American SST program, and it didn't matter much. Few
travellers wanted to pay the extra price to go faster.

Frank Dresser

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
3...
Dateline "rec.radio.shortwave", Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:43:12 GMT: As it
appeared in message-ID#
,
"Frank Dresser" appears to have written
the following...


"David" wrote in message
...
FCC COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY SEES BROADBAND-OVER-
POWERLINE TECHNOLOGY AS A COMPONENT OF "BROADBAND NIRVANA"


On September 22, 2003, FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy
delivered a speech to the United PowerLine Council's Annual
Conference in which she heavily promoted broadband-over-powerline
("BPL") technology. Rarely has an FCC Commissioner presented
such a one-sided address, not mentioning the likelihood that BPL
will cause massive interference to licensed radio services.
Ms. Abernathy's entire speech (as prepared for delivery) and a
summary of the response of one organization are posted at:


http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-239079A1.doc
and
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/09/25/100/?nc=1


[snip]

Is broadband itself worth gushing over? Around here, broadband is
supposed to be 10 times faster at maybe twice the price. On paper,
broadband looks like a pretty good deal compared to two line setup in
which one line is used mostly for dial-up. Still, dial-up is doing
quite well. Dial-up suits me fine, at least for now.

So, just what is broadband nirvana?

Frank Dresser

Being able to telecommute from home without your connection to a
development server or database timing-out. I actually require it in
order to do what I need to do.

I get cable broadband access for $20/month. Normally, it's $25, but I
have my own cable modem and don't pay the monthly rental fee. Last time
I had dialup, $20/month would have been a competitive rate - I'm not
sure what the average dial-up rate is today.

I would also feel quite safe in guessing that, for the vast majority of
people, dial-up would suffice if you were talking about the minimum
bandwidth needed to perform the task (email, web-surfing, etc). The
problem is "impatience" on the part of he general public (they want that
page to open NOW!) and the desire for a more "content rich" internet
experience from those pushing content as well as those pulling content.
You could most likely define "content rich" as one or more of the
following:
- MP3 Sharing
- Multimedia
- Bigger/Better/Badder Ads
- Porn

Speaking of which, wasn't Porn attributed to having a large influence on
the success of VHS over Beta?

There's some interesting things that *could* be done with a decent
broadband connection (like smooth, undistorted voice and video "phone
calls" to family) except that broadband is never all it's cracked up to
be. It does no good to have a gigabit fiber-to-the-desktop connection if
somewhere between your PC and the other end is a 300 baud phone
coupler...

There's good and bad in most things...

-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
3...

Being able to telecommute from home without your connection to a
development server or database timing-out. I actually require it in
order to do what I need to do.

I get cable broadband access for $20/month. Normally, it's $25, but I
have my own cable modem and don't pay the monthly rental fee. Last time
I had dialup, $20/month would have been a competitive rate - I'm not
sure what the average dial-up rate is today.

I would also feel quite safe in guessing that, for the vast majority of
people, dial-up would suffice if you were talking about the minimum
bandwidth needed to perform the task (email, web-surfing, etc). The
problem is "impatience" on the part of he general public (they want that
page to open NOW!) and the desire for a more "content rich" internet
experience from those pushing content as well as those pulling content.
You could most likely define "content rich" as one or more of the
following:
- MP3 Sharing
- Multimedia
- Bigger/Better/Badder Ads
- Porn


Let's not forget poorly designed websites. Some of 'em take half of forever
to load, and reward our patience with -- nearly nothing.


Speaking of which, wasn't Porn attributed to having a large influence on
the success of VHS over Beta?

Porn movies were supposed to have been about half of the video titles sold
in the mid 70s. Those would have been Beta. VHS machines were introduced
around 1980, and quickly got a price advantge on the Beta machines, and had
longer running tapes.


There's some interesting things that *could* be done with a decent
broadband connection (like smooth, undistorted voice and video "phone
calls" to family) except that broadband is never all it's cracked up to
be. It does no good to have a gigabit fiber-to-the-desktop connection if
somewhere between your PC and the other end is a 300 baud phone
coupler...

There's good and bad in most things...

-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)


Imagine the "Broadband Nirvana" of the future. Millions and millions of
computers, owned by clueless users, pumping out multi-megabyte sized virus
attachments 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That'll take our minds off BPL
radio interference.

Frank Dresser

There's no stopping any avenue of broadband delivery regardless of its
need in the marketplace, or how worthless the content. And dated
technolgies such as amateur radio and shortwave broadcasting don't
stand a chance of surviving in the face of the broadband Goliaths,
because bandwidth, any bandwidth, available by any means, equals big
money. So enjoy the MW and HF spectrum while you can, because there's
no stopping the encroaching digital hash. We've been degrading it for
years with QRM anyway, with every new switching power supply or RF
generating unit added to our homes, and millions being added every
day. Change is inevitable. I'll surely miss scanning the HF bands
with my SX-28, my HQ-120, my homebrew regen, even my Sony 7600. I love
HF and I listen to it almost every day. But the "cheese has moved."
If you live well outside of suburbia, or on the open sea, you can tune
or use what's left of HF. Otherwise, you should look elsewhere for
your radio fix.
Pete
KQ5I

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
Dateline "rec.radio.shortwave", Wed, 01 Oct 2003 10:34:01 GMT: As it
appeared in message-ID#


Sometimes I think the average Joe User (lowest common denominator) wants
a PC that behaves more like a really, really smart TV...


You're right, and they should have it. We don't expect people to know much
about how cars work in order to drive and we don't expect people to know
much electronics to use the radio. It's too bad Web TV has such a stigma.
It doesn't suit me, but I think it would suit alot of users just fine.


But what you wrote is both funny and depressing. It stands to reason
that virus hackers are to bandwidth what the junk we own is to closet
space, sooner or later they both tend to fill whatever room is
available...

-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

I don't know why ISPs don't use virus filtering as a big selling point.
AT&T started blocking the latest attachment about 6 hours after it first
struck. Plenty of ISPs don't bother filtering at all. I'd think efficent
virus filtering would be an important consideration for the majority of
users. Especially in the broadband nirvana.

Frank Dresser

"Pete Verrando" wrote in message
om...
There's no stopping any avenue of broadband delivery regardless of its
need in the marketplace, or how worthless the content. And dated
technolgies such as amateur radio and shortwave broadcasting don't
stand a chance of surviving in the face of the broadband Goliaths,
because bandwidth, any bandwidth, available by any means, equals big
money. So enjoy the MW and HF spectrum while you can, because there's
no stopping the encroaching digital hash. We've been degrading it for
years with QRM anyway, with every new switching power supply or RF
generating unit added to our homes, and millions being added every
day. Change is inevitable. I'll surely miss scanning the HF bands
with my SX-28, my HQ-120, my homebrew regen, even my Sony 7600. I love
HF and I listen to it almost every day. But the "cheese has moved."
If you live well outside of suburbia, or on the open sea, you can tune
or use what's left of HF. Otherwise, you should look elsewhere for
your radio fix.
Pete
KQ5I


Are you saying broadband access and HF radiation must necessarily go
together? If so, why?

Frank Dresser
Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser schrieb:

Are you saying broadband access and HF radiation must necessarily go
together? If so, why?

Good q. I have what can be called broadband 'net access (DSL with 768k
down / 128k up), and I have more trouble with the hets generated by ISDN
(it's a combo ISDN/DSL thing with a splitter) or rather the radiation
from the apparently unshielded ISDN cable from the ISDN NTBA to the
telephone base station than any other "telephone line" related effects.
Something that does radiate heavily, on the other hand, is my (cheap)
Fast Ethernet switch, also via the wiring, followed by my computers.
(OK, *that* stuff is in the same room as my SWL eq't. I think I needn't
mention that I always "pull the plug" on all possible sources of
interference before SWLing - all the computer stuff and the DSL
modem/router.) Powerline Communications has been proven to be
inefficient for any larger number of users and thus is good for inhouse
comm at most. I don't see any good reason to promote it except wanting
to get a number of phone calls and letters from angry hams and SWLs.

Frank Dresser
Frank Dresser

I should *really* be drinking less, it seems. (But less than nothing?
*scratching head* [1])

Stephan



[1] OK, it's a lame old joke, plus I wouldn't even see double even when
drunk, but what the heck. ;)
--
Home: http://stephan.win31.de/ | Webm.: http://www.i24.com/
PC#6: i440LX, 2xCel300A, 448 MB, 18 GB, ATI AGP 32 MB, 110W
This is a SCSI-inside, Legacy-plus, TCPA-free computer :)
Reply to newsgroup only. | See home page for working e-mail address.

Are you saying broadband access and HF radiation must necessarily go
together? If so, why?

As a commodity, the HF spectrum can be more greatly exploited for profit as

a means of delivering data bandwidth than as a means of mass communication
or 2-way comms. Broadcasting via terrestrial MW/HF/VHF/UHF transmission
can be virtually replaced by broadband/digital, cell or satellite
technology anyway. Broadcasters look forward to the day when they can
mothball their multi-kilowatt transmitter sites and the engineers they pay
to keep them running. Imagine the savings in electricity alone!
I have a buddy who, thru his Sprint wireless internet connection, can
listen to RealAudio sites from his laptop while driving in his car. It's
just a matter of time!
Pete
KQ5I

"pete" wrote in message
news:01c38899$27465380$4c1588cf@verrando...
Are you saying broadband access and HF radiation must necessarily go
together? If so, why?

As a commodity, the HF spectrum can be more greatly exploited for profit
as

a means of delivering data bandwidth than as a means of mass communication
or 2-way comms.

MW/HF isn't much bandwidth. 30 MHz tops. As a comparison, the FM spectrum
alone is 2/3 of that . Or 5 TV channels. There's nothing favoring
broadband data transmissions on such low frequencies. Efficent antennas are
very large. Directional antennas aimed at one point source are almost
impossible. There's alot of interference from natural sources such as
thunderstorms. Radiated interference can come from halfway across the
state, or half way across the world. VHF/UHF beats MW/HF for broadband
communications on all counts.


Broadcasting via terrestrial MW/HF/VHF/UHF transmission
can be virtually replaced by broadband/digital, cell or satellite
technology anyway. Broadcasters look forward to the day when they can
mothball their multi-kilowatt transmitter sites and the engineers they pay
to keep them running. Imagine the savings in electricity alone!


OK. Let's say electricity costs 10 cents a kilowatt hour. A 50 kW
transmitter uses 5 bucks worth of electricty an hour. Imagine how much more
poor Rush Limbaugh could make if transmitters weren't bleeding the network
dry!

Now that I think of it, the real money would be found in creating automated
talk show hosts. One or two more advances in computerized vocalization, and
Sean Hannity is on the soup line.


I have a buddy who, thru his Sprint wireless internet connection, can
listen to RealAudio sites from his laptop while driving in his car. It's
just a matter of time!
Pete
KQ5I




Oh. What part of the HF/MW spectrum does it use?

Frank Dresser

"Jack" wrote in message
...


It was much easier to clean up Cable TV distribution systems. They are
already shielded, and it was mostly a matter of pressuring the cable
operators to devote the rersources to porperly maintain the cable
plant. Meaning tightening loose connectors, applying more and proper
grounding, etc. BPL is an inherently unshielded medium, as has been
noted here many times. What goes in, leaks out, all over the place.

Unless we're all prepared to bear the cost and hassle of changing
power transmission lines to a shielded medium, I don't see it being
practical.

Its new and not very widespread at present. It doesn't yet adversely
affect as many influential commercial users as it eventually will, and
I think the whipped up commotion that the nation needs broadband at
all costs has clouded potential complainants minds. I think that once
instituted on a wider scale, the FCC will start to see the damage BPL
will do to communications on a much broader scale, as the influential
interests who presently sit the fence are affected and complain of
interference. My question is that, by then, will it be too late to
turn back?

-Jack-

Well, the BPL folk say their scheme won't radiate much. I think they ought
to be held to it. I don't know exactly how much not much is, but clearly,
it's less than the ARRL monitors are recieving at the demo sites. And BPL
is on it's best behavior for the demos.

I don't know nearly enough to know what will happen with BPL in the future.
But they are wrong about a fundimental issue such as interference. Are they
wrong about other things as well? Might they have a incompletely thought
out plan, and hope to fix it up with alot of engineering on the fly? Dunno,
but I still think BPL is goofy.

It's looking like the customers will be given the final decision. And they
just want good performance at a low price. If I were a customer, I'd stick
with proven technology.

Frank Dresser

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
3...
Dateline "rec.radio.shortwave", Thu, 02 Oct 2003 05:17:17 GMT: As it
appeared in message-ID#
,
"Frank Dresser" appears to have written
the following...


"pete" wrote in message
news:01c38899$27465380$4c1588cf@verrando...
Are you saying broadband access and HF radiation must necessarily go
together? If so, why?

As a commodity, the HF spectrum can be more greatly exploited for
profit
as

a means of delivering data bandwidth than as a means of mass
communication or 2-way comms.

MW/HF isn't much bandwidth. 30 MHz tops. As a comparison, the FM
spectrum alone is 2/3 of that . Or 5 TV channels. There's nothing
favoring broadband data transmissions on such low frequencies.
Efficent antennas are very large. Directional antennas aimed at one
point source are almost impossible. There's alot of interference
from natural sources such as thunderstorms. Radiated interference can
come from halfway across the state, or half way across the world.
VHF/UHF beats MW/HF for broadband communications on all counts.


I hadn't considered antenna form-factor as I was under the impression
that the device's power cord was the antenna (so to speak) as soon as it
was plugged into the wall outlet.



BPL would be over the powerlines and any radaition would be incidental. I
got the impression the poster was thinking of directly using the entire HF
spectrum for broadband access rather than for broadcasting and ham radio.



In any event, it would seem that current fashionable/stylish appearance
designs dictate that "Smaller is Cooler". If BPL involves a gigantic set
of rabbit-ears, I'm thinking folks will turn their nose up at it...

-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

If BPL didn't radiate into the radio spectrum, radio hobbyists wouldn't be
bothered. Replacing MW/HF radio's space in the spectrum with broadband has
lots of problems.

Frank Dresser

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.
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.
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.

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

"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

I don't advocate any of this. But given the state of business today,
and the inclination to snatch up every available slice of the bandwidth
pie, it would not suprise me if something like this happens. I don't have
mastery
of all the technical details, or the marketing details, it just seems
rather possible and probable.

If there's a more effecient way to use the HF spectrum, a better way
to
make more money from it, or to save more money in using it, they'll do it.
Amateur radio and shortwave are of so little consequence to this planet.
Only the tiniest miniorty of kermudgeons and geeks (us) would miss it when
its gone.

If big business has even the vaguest idea of how to exploit HF, they'll
snatch it up. And in the US, the FCC will sell it to the highest bidder.

If broadcasters could make more money without a transmitter, they'll do it.

The only loyalty is to the bottom line.

I do a lot of media work for the Nat'l Assoc. of Homebuilders. Their
message to developers on land: if it's for sale, buy it. Buy and develop as
much land as your resources will allow. Even if you don't need it, even the
smallest parcel, buy it anyway. You can bet that the same goes for spectrum
developers.

Pete
KQ5I

"pete" wrote in message
news:01c389cd$b62b5520$141388cf@verrando...
I don't advocate any of this. But given the state of business today,
and the inclination to snatch up every available slice of the bandwidth
pie, it would not suprise me if something like this happens. I don't have
mastery
of all the technical details, or the marketing details, it just seems
rather possible and probable.

If there's a more effecient way to use the HF spectrum, a better way
to
make more money from it, or to save more money in using it, they'll do it.
Amateur radio and shortwave are of so little consequence to this planet.
Only the tiniest miniorty of kermudgeons and geeks (us) would miss it when
its gone.

If big business has even the vaguest idea of how to exploit HF, they'll
snatch it up. And in the US, the FCC will sell it to the highest bidder.

If broadcasters could make more money without a transmitter, they'll do
it.

The only loyalty is to the bottom line.

I do a lot of media work for the Nat'l Assoc. of Homebuilders. Their
message to developers on land: if it's for sale, buy it. Buy and develop
as
much land as your resources will allow. Even if you don't need it, even
the
smallest parcel, buy it anyway. You can bet that the same goes for
spectrum
developers.

Pete
KQ5I


There's some similiarity between real estate and bandwidth, but some
differences, too. While there's a demand in both cases, the total bandwidth
increases with technical developments. I don't know how long it takes to
press the bandwidth frontier another 30 MHz, but I don't think it's very
long.

And the demand for SW bandwidth is shrinking. International broadcasting is
cutting back, and even more importantly, the bandwidth demands of the
utility stations are way, way down. If there was a large demand for SW
bandwidth, I'd think all the quiet sections would be filled by now.

SW isn't suffering from an excess of demand on it's spectrum, it is
suffering from a lack of interest. No way would a goofy scheme like BPL get
off the ground if the big utility broadcasters still had saturated
transoceanic and transcontinental links. And there's no known evidence that
any of the current commisioners would know a shortwave radio even if a SX -
42 fell on 'em. The commercial interests have gone to sattellites, and
we've been left with a vacuum.

Frank Dresser