Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power company BPL trials)

[Paolo Di Francesco]

Hi All

the model itself was wrong in most cases I have heard about. The reality 
is that the power line was (is?) a good mean for the last mile and not 
for the long run

So the reality was that for that model the company needs fiber as close 
as possible to the customer. The advantage is the cost of covering as 
many as possible potential customers with few fibers and go in the houdr 
with the powerline. Doing FTTH means a lot more of costs compared to 
what is already in place and if the company will bring to the customers 
decent speeds that could enable services (e.g. IPTV or whatever) nobody 
will complain.

In Italy we had the possibility to run this model but I guess it did not 
work mainly for political reasons. (Just my opinion)

This is what is happening here in Italy with the copper. The reason why 
we are not doing FFTH is more political than technological but the idea 
is to deploy FTTS/FTTC and use copper from the house to the street and 
then go with the fiber. Still I see that it will suffer from bad 
maintenance even of the last piece of the copper but this solution 
should mitigate a lot of other issues.

Nowadays I don't know if the powerline model has sense compared to 
copper + fiber (FTTS/FTTC)

Paolo

 > Funny to see this today. I was upgrading a customers equipment today who
> works for the Electric company that provided service for BPL here, until
> it failed.
>
> He was telling me how they are still, after two years, finding and
> pulling the equipment off their poles and piling them up in a heap.
>
> I would like to make a correction on A above. It was not a trail and it
> did not fail due to ham radio interference.
>
> This one company walked away after failing due to the technology...
> after spending well over 130 million dollars of tax payer money. I would
> suggest twice that in order expenditures, such as the direct costs to
> our local Electric Cooperative company. The best speeds obtained were
> 4-5, but 90% or more was less then 400k!! Fact, I replaced many of
> these, including a manufacturer two blocks away from the BLP NOC, who
> had 300k D and 45k U!
>
> The technological issues were plenty, but the reason they failed, went
> bankrupt, was because the business model did not match the technology
> reality. When a lightning storm came through, it would take out several
> relays which were used to bypass pole transformers. Then, not the ISP,
> but a certified electrician and line man had to do the repairs...
> usually several down a route at great expense. Storms were draining the
> money... until tornadoes in Alabama threw in the last straw... so many
> outages on poles combined with loss revenue... killed the company.
>
> For that kind of money, a WISP could have built dozens of 110' towers
> across many counties and delivered many times the speed.
>
> What a loss... what a waste... this is a hidden story where the funding
> (granting) agency should have been hung.
>
> As for home automation... this stuff has been around for many years.
> Using Radio Shack control switches, I automated a home in the early 80s.
> I deautomated it in the early 90s before selling the house the
> reason... after a few short years, most control units had been fried
> from normal surges in the electric system (storms).
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 9:49 AM, ralph  > wrote:
>
> I am writing this because I just read an old thread from around
> 9/20/13 on AFMUG in which BPL was being discussed. 
>
> I’m no longer on that list due to the amount of traffic, but I’d
> like to discuss it more here.
>
> __ __
>
> __ __
>
> A.  The failed power company BPL trials were a unique
> technology.  However the frequencies used were not compatible with
> both Amateur Radio and with International broadcasters. They were
> shut down due to much lobbying from both groups as well as several
> technical and economic challenges.   It also still required WiFi of
> some type to get the signal from the pole/transformer to the end
> user. Good riddance to them and their noisy interference!
>
> __ __
>
> B.  But the technology that has proven to be useful is more
> localized: Home Power Line Networking. Check out
> https://www.homeplug.org/home/
>
> __ __
>
> There is a lot of potential for us in these devices.
>
> __ __
>
> __ __
>
> They originally began as “Home Plug” which carried data at up to at
> 14 Mbps back in 2001.
>
> __ __
>
> They have a newer, more robust standard called Homeplug AV and
> supposedly is good for 200 Mbps. We have tested them for a year and
> have been (or plan to be) experimenting with several applications:
>
> __ __
>
> 1.  We do a lot of Marinas. We already have our WiFi APs plugged
> in to AC at each dock. We will use HPAV to deliver “hardwired”
> connectivity to those who don’t want to use

Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power company BPL trials)

[ralph]

Hi Paolo-
The long runs are what generated so much interference.  
The new Homeplug stuff is a lot more "last mile" because of it having to be
on the secondary of the final transformer.

I'm not at all promoting bringing the old BPL back, but am certainly
interested in using it on the secondary in the applications I mentioned
(marinas, MDUs, pole to home, etc).


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Paolo Di Francesco
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 6:47 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power company
BPL trials)

Hi All

the model itself was wrong in most cases I have heard about. The reality is
that the power line was (is?) a good mean for the last mile and not for the
long run

So the reality was that for that model the company needs fiber as close as
possible to the customer. The advantage is the cost of covering as many as
possible potential customers with few fibers and go in the houdr with the
powerline. Doing FTTH means a lot more of costs compared to what is already
in place and if the company will bring to the customers decent speeds that
could enable services (e.g. IPTV or whatever) nobody will complain.

In Italy we had the possibility to run this model but I guess it did not
work mainly for political reasons. (Just my opinion)

This is what is happening here in Italy with the copper. The reason why we
are not doing FFTH is more political than technological but the idea is to
deploy FTTS/FTTC and use copper from the house to the street and then go
with the fiber. Still I see that it will suffer from bad maintenance even of
the last piece of the copper but this solution should mitigate a lot of
other issues.

Nowadays I don't know if the powerline model has sense compared to copper +
fiber (FTTS/FTTC)

Paolo

 > Funny to see this today. I was upgrading a customers equipment today who
> works for the Electric company that provided service for BPL here, 
> until it failed.
>
> He was telling me how they are still, after two years, finding and 
> pulling the equipment off their poles and piling them up in a heap.
>
> I would like to make a correction on A above. It was not a trail and 
> it did not fail due to ham radio interference.
>
> This one company walked away after failing due to the technology...
> after spending well over 130 million dollars of tax payer money. I 
> would suggest twice that in order expenditures, such as the direct 
> costs to our local Electric Cooperative company. The best speeds 
> obtained were 4-5, but 90% or more was less then 400k!! Fact, I 
> replaced many of these, including a manufacturer two blocks away from 
> the BLP NOC, who had 300k D and 45k U!
>
> The technological issues were plenty, but the reason they failed, went 
> bankrupt, was because the business model did not match the technology 
> reality. When a lightning storm came through, it would take out 
> several relays which were used to bypass pole transformers. Then, not 
> the ISP, but a certified electrician and line man had to do the repairs...
> usually several down a route at great expense. Storms were draining 
> the money... until tornadoes in Alabama threw in the last straw... so 
> many outages on poles combined with loss revenue... killed the company.
>
> For that kind of money, a WISP could have built dozens of 110' towers 
> across many counties and delivered many times the speed.
>
> What a loss... what a waste... this is a hidden story where the 
> funding
> (granting) agency should have been hung.
>
> As for home automation... this stuff has been around for many years.
> Using Radio Shack control switches, I automated a home in the early 80s.
> I deautomated it in the early 90s before selling the house the 
> reason... after a few short years, most control units had been fried 
> from normal surges in the electric system (storms).
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 9:49 AM, ralph  > wrote:
>
> I am writing this because I just read an old thread from around
> 9/20/13 on AFMUG in which BPL was being discussed. 
>
> I'm no longer on that list due to the amount of traffic, but I'd
> like to discuss it more here.
>
> __ __
>
> __ __
>
> A.  The failed power company BPL trials were a unique
> technology.  However the frequencies used were not compatible with
> both Amateur Radio and with International broadcasters. They were
> shut down due to much lobbying from both groups as well as several
> technical and economic challenges.   It also still required WiFi of
> some type to get the signal from the pole/transformer to the end
> user. Good riddance to them and their noisy interference!
>
> __ __
>
> B.  But the technology that has proven to be useful is more
> localized: Home Power Line Networking. Check out
> https://www.homeplug.org/home/
>
> 

Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power companyBPL trials)

[ralph]

Thanks Jay.

Did you ever try to get more than one remote to connect to a master without 
doing anything special?

That’s my ultimate goal. And do you remember the model unit you used?

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 1:43 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power companyBPL 
trials)

 

 

Ralph - pretty sure we used the netgear model units and they did not require 
anything more than plug and pray.  Worked great.

 

- Original Message - 

From: ralph   

To: 'WISPA General List'   

Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:39 PM

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power companyBPL 
trials)

 

Then you may not be talking about what I am talking about.

I think it may have been Duke Power who did some of the 1st generation 
trial/pilots I speak of.  It was quite a while ago,  It was too expensive, 
didn’t work well, and, well, yes it certainly did interfere with licensed users 
(Ham Radio and International broadcasters). It is a part 15 service. It 
transmits on unshielded wires on approximately 2-30 MHz. This covers almost all 
low frequency Ham bands, International broadcast, and CB.  Here is the database 
of the “trials”   
http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html#Cities  It is way out of date, but 
there is tons of interesting information here. Unfortunately a great many of 
the links are broken.

 

The two most spectacular failures were those of IBEC, (the company I believe 
Clay is describing) who folded January of 2012. They cited the power line 
disruption from the Southeastern Tornadoes as the reason.  These are the same 
tornadoes that tore up several of us here on this list- especially in Alabama!  
IBEC was competing with WISPS and all the while causing illegal interference to 
FCC licensed users.

 

 
http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-shows-ibec-bpl-systems-are-interfering-violating-fcc-rules

 

The second was the City of Manassas, VA, who started their trial way back in 
2002. The “plug was pulled” on their BPL in July of 2010.

 

A little Google-ing will find you demonstrations of how horrible the 
interference was.

 

The part 15 rules concerning BPL are very interesting:  47 C.F.R. §15.615  
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/15.615

 

The official database of BPL systems that operators are, per the FCC, supposed 
to list their systems in at least 30 days before beginning operations is at  
http://www.bpldatabase.org/listing/  IBEC repeatedly violated that FCC rule

 

 

 

 

 

The most recent technology (HomePlug) incorporates protection 
(filtering/notching)  for the Amateur bands and is a much more friendly 
neighbor.

 

Speaking of your Radio Shack devices (and I had a lot of them too) – they were 
based on the BSR X10 technology. The 80’s stuff was pretty poor. Later on it 
evolved to be a lot better and even worked bidirectionally, which really helped 
the reliability.  Many home automation companies sprang up to utilize the 
technology. When I was in the burglar business we laughed at the “Car Trunkers” 
trying to sell an alarm based on them- before they were even 2 way.  My smart 
thermostat uses the X-10 passive infrared sensors to let it know when the 
different rooms are occupied.

 

And like yours, many of modules are now dead, but I try to keep a few around to 
use to turn the Christmas lights off and on.   That X10 company who advertised 
us to death a few years ago was also responsible for those 2.4 GHz analog video 
cameras that can singlehandedly wipe out the entire 2.4 WiFi band. Boy am I 
glad they don’t advertise like that anymore! They seem to have calmed down and 
are mostly about security and switching again now.

 

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org   
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Clay Stewart
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:19 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power company 
BPL trials)

 

Funny to see this today. I was upgrading a customers equipment today who works 
for the Electric company that provided service for BPL here, until it failed.

 

He was telling me how they are still, after two years, finding and pulling the 
equipment off their poles and piling them up in a heap.

 

I would like to make a correction on A above. It was not a trail and it did not 
fail due to ham radio interference.

 

This one company walked away after failing due to the technology... after 
spending well over 130 million dollars of tax payer money. I would suggest 
twice that in order expenditures, such as the direct costs to our local 
Electric Cooperative company. The be

Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power company BPL trials)

[Paolo Di Francesco]

Hi Ralph

if you are interested in running the last mile on powerlines (because 
maybe you have a power company or you are doing a partnership with them) 
there are some vendors that could help you with the powerline modem (to 
put in the house) + the access part.

Obviouly your problem would be to have fiber (or even wireless licensed 
backbone) as close as possible to the customer and have thousands of 
customers ready to embrace the technology ;)

Paolo

> Hi Paolo-
> The long runs are what generated so much interference.
> The new Homeplug stuff is a lot more "last mile" because of it having to be
> on the secondary of the final transformer.
>
> I'm not at all promoting bringing the old BPL back, but am certainly
> interested in using it on the secondary in the applications I mentioned
> (marinas, MDUs, pole to home, etc).
>
>

-- 


Ing. Paolo Di Francesco

Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale

Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo

C.F. e P.IVA  05940050825
Fax : +39-091-8772072
assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432
web: http://www.level7.it



___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power company BPL trials)

[D. Ryan Spott]

In trailer parks and RV parks we use them to move bandwidth out to the 
far edges of the park.  This helps us get past the big metal signal 
blocking RVs.


They DO NOT work past or through a transformer.

ryan

 On 12/28/13 6:49 AM, ralph wrote:


I am writing this because I just read an old thread from around 
9/20/13 on AFMUG in which BPL was being discussed.


I'm no longer on that list due to the amount of traffic, but I'd like 
to discuss it more here.


A. The failed power company BPL trials were a unique technology.  
However the frequencies used were not compatible with both Amateur 
Radio and with International broadcasters. They were shut down due to 
much lobbying from both groups as well as several technical and 
economic challenges.   It also still required WiFi of some type to get 
the signal from the pole/transformer to the end user. Good riddance to 
them and their noisy interference!


B. But the technology that has proven to be useful is more localized: 
Home Power Line Networking. Check out https://www.homeplug.org/home/


There is a lot of potential for us in these devices.

They originally began as "Home Plug" which carried data at up to at 14 
Mbps back in 2001.


They have a newer, more robust standard called Homeplug AV and 
supposedly is good for 200 Mbps. We have tested them for a year and 
have been (or plan to be) experimenting with several applications:


1. We do a lot of Marinas. We already have our WiFi APs plugged in to 
AC at each dock. We will use HPAV to deliver "hardwired" connectivity 
to those who don't want to use WiFi.


2. We do Muni WiFi. Since we are already on the poles and have access 
to the power company secondary, we may plug in a unit along with our 
other devices in the box on the pole.  This will allow us to deliver 
"hardwire" connectivity to at least half the houses on that 
transformer.  So in a lot of cases it will be useful.


3. We do MDUs. Same rationale as #2, but equipment closets instead of 
poles.


Yes we know all about the transformer issue. It will eliminate some 
potential users, but we are on a lot of poles and in a lot of closets. 
In some cases we can access both legs of the single phase line anyway.


We can send the customer to many places both local and online to get 
their home unit.


Here is the only rub:

All the units I have tried require the two units to be "married" You 
can have many units on a "network" but their security requires the 
users to press a button to synch the with the master one. This is 
actually setting an AES security key And you have to press a button on 
the master each time you add a remote. I am calling them master and 
remote here, but the units are identical. I'm using the term to 
differentiate between the home unit and the one on the pole. Someone 
did tell me of a set they tried that "just worked"


In most of my applications, the AES security does not matter- remember 
the core system is an open WiFi network anyway.  I would rather users 
be able to use a simple, easy to obtain unit. With the newer paired 
units having that preset, it may knock out some flexibility. These may 
be what the person referenced above may have had.


What I really want to see a manufacturer come out with is a manageable 
unit we can put as the "base".  Similar to  a WiFi AP, we could do 
authorizing (similar to MAC authentication or like DOCSIS cable modems 
are remotely activated with the CMTS) of remote devices on the same 
line.  Customer plugs in, calls up, gives address of  his unit and we 
authorize it. If they don't pay, they get shut off.


Of course we could stock and ship units that were preset with our AES 
code, but it would be a nightmare keeping all that straight as well as 
an investment in equipment we wouldn't want to make.


As I said, there is lots of potential in Home Plug AV  right now, and 
even more if the equipment becomes a little more flexible.  I'm just 
putting the ideas out there.


Anyone else using them or planning to use them in novel ways.



___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failedpower companyBPL trials)

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

I'll look them up next week - yes - had as many as four connected.  There was 
no "master" unit, it was all one big "bridge", like having them all on a switch

  - Original Message - 
  From: ralph 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:53 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failedpower 
companyBPL trials)


  Thanks Jay.

  Did you ever try to get more than one remote to connect to a master without 
doing anything special?

  That’s my ultimate goal. And do you remember the model unit you used?

   

  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller
  Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 1:43 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power 
companyBPL trials)

   

   

  Ralph - pretty sure we used the netgear model units and they did not require 
anything more than plug and pray.  Worked great.

   

- Original Message - 

From: ralph 

To: 'WISPA General List' 

Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:39 PM

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power 
companyBPL trials)

 

Then you may not be talking about what I am talking about.

I think it may have been Duke Power who did some of the 1st generation 
trial/pilots I speak of.  It was quite a while ago,  It was too expensive, 
didn’t work well, and, well, yes it certainly did interfere with licensed users 
(Ham Radio and International broadcasters). It is a part 15 service. It 
transmits on unshielded wires on approximately 2-30 MHz. This covers almost all 
low frequency Ham bands, International broadcast, and CB.  Here is the database 
of the “trials” http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html#Cities  It is way out 
of date, but there is tons of interesting information here. Unfortunately a 
great many of the links are broken.

 

The two most spectacular failures were those of IBEC, (the company I 
believe Clay is describing) who folded January of 2012. They cited the power 
line disruption from the Southeastern Tornadoes as the reason.  These are the 
same tornadoes that tore up several of us here on this list- especially in 
Alabama!  IBEC was competing with WISPS and all the while causing illegal 
interference to FCC licensed users.


http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-shows-ibec-bpl-systems-are-interfering-violating-fcc-rules

 

The second was the City of Manassas, VA, who started their trial way back 
in 2002. The “plug was pulled” on their BPL in July of 2010.

 

A little Google-ing will find you demonstrations of how horrible the 
interference was.

 

The part 15 rules concerning BPL are very interesting:  47 C.F.R. §15.615  
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/15.615

 

The official database of BPL systems that operators are, per the FCC, 
supposed to list their systems in at least 30 days before beginning operations 
is at  http://www.bpldatabase.org/listing/  IBEC repeatedly violated that FCC 
rule

 

 

 

 

 

The most recent technology (HomePlug) incorporates protection 
(filtering/notching)  for the Amateur bands and is a much more friendly 
neighbor.

 

Speaking of your Radio Shack devices (and I had a lot of them too) – they 
were based on the BSR X10 technology. The 80’s stuff was pretty poor. Later on 
it evolved to be a lot better and even worked bidirectionally, which really 
helped the reliability.  Many home automation companies sprang up to utilize 
the technology. When I was in the burglar business we laughed at the “Car 
Trunkers” trying to sell an alarm based on them- before they were even 2 way.  
My smart thermostat uses the X-10 passive infrared sensors to let it know when 
the different rooms are occupied.

 

And like yours, many of modules are now dead, but I try to keep a few 
around to use to turn the Christmas lights off and on.   That X10 company who 
advertised us to death a few years ago was also responsible for those 2.4 GHz 
analog video cameras that can singlehandedly wipe out the entire 2.4 WiFi band. 
Boy am I glad they don’t advertise like that anymore! They seem to have calmed 
down and are mostly about security and switching again now.

 

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Clay Stewart
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:19 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power 
company BPL trials)

 

Funny to see this today. I was upgrading a customers equipment today who 
works for the Electric company that provided service for BPL here, until it 
failed.

 

He was telling me how they are still, after two years, finding and pulling 
the equipment off their poles and piling them up in a heap.

 

I would like to make a correction on A above. It was n

Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not thefailedpower companyBPL trials)

[Tim Kerns]

I’ve used the Trendnet units at home and at a couple clients. Not real 
impressed, but I can get connectivity in other parts of the home without 
expense and time of running  Cat5. I don’t remember the throughput, but it was 
no way near specs.  I had one that was also running with the dish slingshot: 
Ethernet over power unit. Had some issues with packet loss, not sure if it was 
caused by the dish device or not.

Tim



rom: CBB - Jay Fuller 
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 11:22 AM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not thefailedpower companyBPL 
trials)


I'll look them up next week - yes - had as many as four connected.  There was 
no "master" unit, it was all one big "bridge", like having them all on a switch

  - Original Message - 
  From: ralph 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:53 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failedpower 
companyBPL trials)

  Thanks Jay.

  Did you ever try to get more than one remote to connect to a master without 
doing anything special?

  That’s my ultimate goal. And do you remember the model unit you used?

   

  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller
  Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 1:43 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power 
companyBPL trials)

   

   

  Ralph - pretty sure we used the netgear model units and they did not require 
anything more than plug and pray.  Worked great.

   

- Original Message - 

From: ralph 

To: 'WISPA General List' 

Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:39 PM

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power 
companyBPL trials)

 

Then you may not be talking about what I am talking about.

I think it may have been Duke Power who did some of the 1st generation 
trial/pilots I speak of.  It was quite a while ago,  It was too expensive, 
didn’t work well, and, well, yes it certainly did interfere with licensed users 
(Ham Radio and International broadcasters). It is a part 15 service. It 
transmits on unshielded wires on approximately 2-30 MHz. This covers almost all 
low frequency Ham bands, International broadcast, and CB.  Here is the database 
of the “trials” http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html#Cities  It is way out 
of date, but there is tons of interesting information here. Unfortunately a 
great many of the links are broken.

 

The two most spectacular failures were those of IBEC, (the company I 
believe Clay is describing) who folded January of 2012. They cited the power 
line disruption from the Southeastern Tornadoes as the reason.  These are the 
same tornadoes that tore up several of us here on this list- especially in 
Alabama!  IBEC was competing with WISPS and all the while causing illegal 
interference to FCC licensed users.


http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-shows-ibec-bpl-systems-are-interfering-violating-fcc-rules

 

The second was the City of Manassas, VA, who started their trial way back 
in 2002. The “plug was pulled” on their BPL in July of 2010.

 

A little Google-ing will find you demonstrations of how horrible the 
interference was.

 

The part 15 rules concerning BPL are very interesting:  47 C.F.R. §15.615  
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/15.615

 

The official database of BPL systems that operators are, per the FCC, 
supposed to list their systems in at least 30 days before beginning operations 
is at  http://www.bpldatabase.org/listing/  IBEC repeatedly violated that FCC 
rule

 

 

 

 

 

The most recent technology (HomePlug) incorporates protection 
(filtering/notching)  for the Amateur bands and is a much more friendly 
neighbor.

 

Speaking of your Radio Shack devices (and I had a lot of them too) – they 
were based on the BSR X10 technology. The 80’s stuff was pretty poor. Later on 
it evolved to be a lot better and even worked bidirectionally, which really 
helped the reliability.  Many home automation companies sprang up to utilize 
the technology. When I was in the burglar business we laughed at the “Car 
Trunkers” trying to sell an alarm based on them- before they were even 2 way.  
My smart thermostat uses the X-10 passive infrared sensors to let it know when 
the different rooms are occupied.

 

And like yours, many of modules are now dead, but I try to keep a few 
around to use to turn the Christmas lights off and on.   That X10 company who 
advertised us to death a few years ago was also responsible for those 2.4 GHz 
analog video cameras that can singlehandedly wipe out the entire 2.4 WiFi band. 
Boy am I glad they don’t advertise like that anymore! They seem to have calmed 
down and are mostly about security and switching again now.

 

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wirele

Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failedpower companyBPL trials)

[ralph]

That’s what I’m looking for, Jay.

 

When I say “Master”, I mean the one functioning as the backhaul to my network. 

One master on the pole (in the case of MuniWiFi enhancement)  (or in the 
rafters of the covered dock in a marina application) and a number of slaves on 
the boats or in housed, all on the same secondary.  Our marinas have 
transformers on shore and 60-70 boat slips on the single phase secondary. I 
could do the whole dock with 2 masters.

 

Of course to have a n Ethernet manageable one would be the cat’s meow. Then we 
could authorize the subscribers individually, like a CATV CMTS.

 

But since  our network is run as a hotspot the size of half a state, they still 
have to get past the captive portal anyway so that’s why Manageable is just 
something really nice but not required.

 

The WiFi works pretty well in the boats, but some of these yachts have 
basements that the WiFi doesn’t get into or the boats are so big (120-150ft) 
the coverage is poor.

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failedpower companyBPL 
trials)

 

 

I'll look them up next week - yes - had as many as four connected.  There was 
no "master" unit, it was all one big "bridge", like having them all on a switch

 

- Original Message - 

From: ralph   

To: 'WISPA General List'   

Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:53 AM

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failedpower companyBPL 
trials)

 

Thanks Jay.

Did you ever try to get more than one remote to connect to a master without 
doing anything special?

That’s my ultimate goal. And do you remember the model unit you used?

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org   
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 1:43 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power companyBPL 
trials)

 

 

Ralph - pretty sure we used the netgear model units and they did not require 
anything more than plug and pray.  Worked great.

 

- Original Message - 

From: ralph   

To: 'WISPA General List'   

Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:39 PM

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power companyBPL 
trials)

 

Then you may not be talking about what I am talking about.

I think it may have been Duke Power who did some of the 1st generation 
trial/pilots I speak of.  It was quite a while ago,  It was too expensive, 
didn’t work well, and, well, yes it certainly did interfere with licensed users 
(Ham Radio and International broadcasters). It is a part 15 service. It 
transmits on unshielded wires on approximately 2-30 MHz. This covers almost all 
low frequency Ham bands, International broadcast, and CB.  Here is the database 
of the “trials”   
http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html#Cities  It is way out of date, but 
there is tons of interesting information here. Unfortunately a great many of 
the links are broken.

 

The two most spectacular failures were those of IBEC, (the company I believe 
Clay is describing) who folded January of 2012. They cited the power line 
disruption from the Southeastern Tornadoes as the reason.  These are the same 
tornadoes that tore up several of us here on this list- especially in Alabama!  
IBEC was competing with WISPS and all the while causing illegal interference to 
FCC licensed users.

 

 
http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-shows-ibec-bpl-systems-are-interfering-violating-fcc-rules

 

The second was the City of Manassas, VA, who started their trial way back in 
2002. The “plug was pulled” on their BPL in July of 2010.

 

A little Google-ing will find you demonstrations of how horrible the 
interference was.

 

The part 15 rules concerning BPL are very interesting:  47 C.F.R. §15.615  
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/15.615

 

The official database of BPL systems that operators are, per the FCC, supposed 
to list their systems in at least 30 days before beginning operations is at  
http://www.bpldatabase.org/listing/  IBEC repeatedly violated that FCC rule

 

 

 

 

 

The most recent technology (HomePlug) incorporates protection 
(filtering/notching)  for the Amateur bands and is a much more friendly 
neighbor.

 

Speaking of your Radio Shack devices (and I had a lot of them too) – they were 
based on the BSR X10 technology. The 80’s stuff was pretty poor. Later on it 
evolved to be a lot better and even worked bidirectionally, which really helped 
the reliability.  Many home automation companies sprang up to utilize 

Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (notthe failedpower companyBPL trials)

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

Where in GA are you? :)
Sounds like I need to come rent a boat...

  - Original Message - 
  From: ralph 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (notthe failedpower companyBPL 
trials)


  That’s what I’m looking for, Jay.

   

  When I say “Master”, I mean the one functioning as the backhaul to my 
network. 

  One master on the pole (in the case of MuniWiFi enhancement)  (or in the 
rafters of the covered dock in a marina application) and a number of slaves on 
the boats or in housed, all on the same secondary.  Our marinas have 
transformers on shore and 60-70 boat slips on the single phase secondary. I 
could do the whole dock with 2 masters.

   

  Of course to have a n Ethernet manageable one would be the cat’s meow. Then 
we could authorize the subscribers individually, like a CATV CMTS.

   

  But since  our network is run as a hotspot the size of half a state, they 
still have to get past the captive portal anyway so that’s why Manageable is 
just something really nice but not required.

   

  The WiFi works pretty well in the boats, but some of these yachts have 
basements that the WiFi doesn’t get into or the boats are so big (120-150ft) 
the coverage is poor.

   

  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller
  Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:22 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failedpower 
companyBPL trials)

   

   

  I'll look them up next week - yes - had as many as four connected.  There was 
no "master" unit, it was all one big "bridge", like having them all on a switch

   

- Original Message - 

From: ralph 

To: 'WISPA General List' 

Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:53 AM

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failedpower 
companyBPL trials)

 

Thanks Jay.

Did you ever try to get more than one remote to connect to a master without 
doing anything special?

That’s my ultimate goal. And do you remember the model unit you used?

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 1:43 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power 
companyBPL trials)

 

 

Ralph - pretty sure we used the netgear model units and they did not 
require anything more than plug and pray.  Worked great.

 

  - Original Message - 

  From: ralph 

  To: 'WISPA General List' 

  Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:39 PM

  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power 
companyBPL trials)

   

  Then you may not be talking about what I am talking about.

  I think it may have been Duke Power who did some of the 1st generation 
trial/pilots I speak of.  It was quite a while ago,  It was too expensive, 
didn’t work well, and, well, yes it certainly did interfere with licensed users 
(Ham Radio and International broadcasters). It is a part 15 service. It 
transmits on unshielded wires on approximately 2-30 MHz. This covers almost all 
low frequency Ham bands, International broadcast, and CB.  Here is the database 
of the “trials” http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html#Cities  It is way out 
of date, but there is tons of interesting information here. Unfortunately a 
great many of the links are broken.

   

  The two most spectacular failures were those of IBEC, (the company I 
believe Clay is describing) who folded January of 2012. They cited the power 
line disruption from the Southeastern Tornadoes as the reason.  These are the 
same tornadoes that tore up several of us here on this list- especially in 
Alabama!  IBEC was competing with WISPS and all the while causing illegal 
interference to FCC licensed users.

  
http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-shows-ibec-bpl-systems-are-interfering-violating-fcc-rules

   

  The second was the City of Manassas, VA, who started their trial way back 
in 2002. The “plug was pulled” on their BPL in July of 2010.

   

  A little Google-ing will find you demonstrations of how horrible the 
interference was.

   

  The part 15 rules concerning BPL are very interesting:  47 C.F.R. §15.615 
 http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/15.615

   

  The official database of BPL systems that operators are, per the FCC, 
supposed to list their systems in at least 30 days before beginning operations 
is at  http://www.bpldatabase.org/listing/  IBEC repeatedly violated that FCC 
rule

   

   

   

   

   

  The most recent technology (HomePlug) incorporates protection 
(filtering/notching)  for the Amateur bands and is a much more friendly 
neighbor.

   

  Speaking of your Radio Shack devices (and I had a lot of th

Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (notthe failedpower companyBPL trials)

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

This is the part / part number description from newegg.

POWERLINE NETGEAR|XET1001-100NAR


  - Original Message - 
  From: ralph 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (notthe failedpower companyBPL 
trials)


  That’s what I’m looking for, Jay.

   

  When I say “Master”, I mean the one functioning as the backhaul to my 
network. 

  One master on the pole (in the case of MuniWiFi enhancement)  (or in the 
rafters of the covered dock in a marina application) and a number of slaves on 
the boats or in housed, all on the same secondary.  Our marinas have 
transformers on shore and 60-70 boat slips on the single phase secondary. I 
could do the whole dock with 2 masters.

   

  Of course to have a n Ethernet manageable one would be the cat’s meow. Then 
we could authorize the subscribers individually, like a CATV CMTS.

   

  But since  our network is run as a hotspot the size of half a state, they 
still have to get past the captive portal anyway so that’s why Manageable is 
just something really nice but not required.

   

  The WiFi works pretty well in the boats, but some of these yachts have 
basements that the WiFi doesn’t get into or the boats are so big (120-150ft) 
the coverage is poor.

   

  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller
  Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:22 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failedpower 
companyBPL trials)

   

   

  I'll look them up next week - yes - had as many as four connected.  There was 
no "master" unit, it was all one big "bridge", like having them all on a switch

   

- Original Message - 

From: ralph 

To: 'WISPA General List' 

Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:53 AM

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failedpower 
companyBPL trials)

 

Thanks Jay.

Did you ever try to get more than one remote to connect to a master without 
doing anything special?

That’s my ultimate goal. And do you remember the model unit you used?

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 1:43 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power 
companyBPL trials)

 

 

Ralph - pretty sure we used the netgear model units and they did not 
require anything more than plug and pray.  Worked great.

 

  - Original Message - 

  From: ralph 

  To: 'WISPA General List' 

  Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:39 PM

  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power 
companyBPL trials)

   

  Then you may not be talking about what I am talking about.

  I think it may have been Duke Power who did some of the 1st generation 
trial/pilots I speak of.  It was quite a while ago,  It was too expensive, 
didn’t work well, and, well, yes it certainly did interfere with licensed users 
(Ham Radio and International broadcasters). It is a part 15 service. It 
transmits on unshielded wires on approximately 2-30 MHz. This covers almost all 
low frequency Ham bands, International broadcast, and CB.  Here is the database 
of the “trials” http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html#Cities  It is way out 
of date, but there is tons of interesting information here. Unfortunately a 
great many of the links are broken.

   

  The two most spectacular failures were those of IBEC, (the company I 
believe Clay is describing) who folded January of 2012. They cited the power 
line disruption from the Southeastern Tornadoes as the reason.  These are the 
same tornadoes that tore up several of us here on this list- especially in 
Alabama!  IBEC was competing with WISPS and all the while causing illegal 
interference to FCC licensed users.

  
http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-shows-ibec-bpl-systems-are-interfering-violating-fcc-rules

   

  The second was the City of Manassas, VA, who started their trial way back 
in 2002. The “plug was pulled” on their BPL in July of 2010.

   

  A little Google-ing will find you demonstrations of how horrible the 
interference was.

   

  The part 15 rules concerning BPL are very interesting:  47 C.F.R. §15.615 
 http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/15.615

   

  The official database of BPL systems that operators are, per the FCC, 
supposed to list their systems in at least 30 days before beginning operations 
is at  http://www.bpldatabase.org/listing/  IBEC repeatedly violated that FCC 
rule

   

   

   

   

   

  The most recent technology (HomePlug) incorporates protection 
(filtering/notching)  for the Amateur bands and is a much more friendly 
neighbor.

   

  Speaking of your Radio Shack d

Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (notthe failedpower companyBPL trials)

[Hass, Douglas A.]

I have had better luck with the Zyxel PLA4215. I tried the Netgear unit Jay 
lists below, but had a harder time connecting and worse throughput.  Zyxel says 
that the PLA4215 is a 500 Mbps adapter, but that would be over a short run, 
single branch with just a master and single slave...and then only maybe. I have 
been generally limited to 80 or 90 Mbps per second over multiple branches and 
with as many as three slaves (now down to one again, as I wire more of our 
house).



Doug



-- Original message --
From: CBB - Jay Fuller
Date: 12/29/2013 3:02 PM
To: WISPA General List;
Subject:Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (notthe failedpower companyBPL 
trials)


This is the part / part number description from newegg.

POWERLINE NETGEAR|XET1001-100NAR



Douglas A. Hass
Associate
312.786.6502
d...@franczek.com

Franczek Radelet P.C.
300 South Wacker Drive
Suite 3400
Chicago, IL 60606
312.986.0300 - Main
312.986.9192 - Fax
http://franczek.com

Franczek Radelet is committed to sustainability - please consider the 
environment before printing this email.



Circular 230 Disclosure: Under requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue 
Service, we inform you that, unless specifically stated otherwise, any federal 
tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not 
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) 
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing 
or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter herein.

For more information about Franczek Radelet P.C., please visit franczek.com. 
The information contained in this e-mail message or any attachment may be 
confidential and/or privileged, and is intended only for the use of the named 
recipient. If you are not the named recipient of this message, you are hereby 
notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message or 
any attachment thereto, is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this 
message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

- Original Message -
From: ralph 
To: 'WISPA General List' 
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (notthe failedpower companyBPL 
trials)

That’s what I’m looking for, Jay.

When I say “Master”, I mean the one functioning as the backhaul to my network.
One master on the pole (in the case of MuniWiFi enhancement)  (or in the 
rafters of the covered dock in a marina application) and a number of slaves on 
the boats or in housed, all on the same secondary.  Our marinas have 
transformers on shore and 60-70 boat slips on the single phase secondary. I 
could do the whole dock with 2 masters.

Of course to have a n Ethernet manageable one would be the cat’s meow. Then we 
could authorize the subscribers individually, like a CATV CMTS.

But since  our network is run as a hotspot the size of half a state, they still 
have to get past the captive portal anyway so that’s why Manageable is just 
something really nice but not required.

The WiFi works pretty well in the boats, but some of these yachts have 
basements that the WiFi doesn’t get into or the boats are so big (120-150ft) 
the coverage is poor.

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failedpower companyBPL 
trials)


I'll look them up next week - yes - had as many as four connected.  There was 
no "master" unit, it was all one big "bridge", like having them all on a switch

- Original Message -
From: ralph 
To: 'WISPA General List' 
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failedpower companyBPL 
trials)

Thanks Jay.
Did you ever try to get more than one remote to connect to a master without 
doing anything special?
That’s my ultimate goal. And do you remember the model unit you used?

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 1:43 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power companyBPL 
trials)


Ralph - pretty sure we used the netgear model units and they did not require 
anything more than plug and pray.  Worked great.

- Original Message -
From: ralph 
To: 'WISPA General List' 
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power companyBPL 
trials)

Then you may not be talking about what I 

Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power company BPL trials)

[ralph]

Looks like the ones Jay used are now discontinued and are the older 100 Mb ones 
(Homeplug , not Homeplug AV)

I wonder if they introduced the enhanced security when they came out with the 
Homeplug AV.

 

The newer ones would be awesome if I can get some that don’t require matching 
to each other. 

I have a set of Trendnet ones and a set of Lindsey Wireless ones right now I 
plan to test. I also have a single of another brand.

 

I had this one idea , but it would require me to stock and sell them:

Get a bunch of some type. Match them all up ahead of time, Keep a “reference” 
one at the office and then install one on each dock as a “master” and sell the 
slave units to the boat owners.  But what I’m not sure of is what happens when 
I run out.  Would I be able to take the new ones, match them to the reference 
one and then have them work on the boats once I get them to the customers.?

 

I really wish I could call someone in Engineering at one of these manufacturers 
to get more info.  I might try Emailing someone at the Homeplug Alliance to see 
if they could put me in touch with someone.

 

I will post something soon with pics showing the layouts of one of the Marinas 
as well as an example of the MuniWiFi that I want to enhance. I think both 
scenarios are kind of cool.

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 4:03 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (notthe failedpower companyBPL 
trials)

 

 

This is the part / part number description from newegg.

 

POWERLINE NETGEAR|XET1001-100NAR

 

 

- Original Message - 

From: ralph   

To: 'WISPA General List'   

Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:23 PM

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (notthe failedpower companyBPL 
trials)

 

That’s what I’m looking for, Jay.

 

When I say “Master”, I mean the one functioning as the backhaul to my network. 

One master on the pole (in the case of MuniWiFi enhancement)  (or in the 
rafters of the covered dock in a marina application) and a number of slaves on 
the boats or in housed, all on the same secondary.  Our marinas have 
transformers on shore and 60-70 boat slips on the single phase secondary. I 
could do the whole dock with 2 masters.

 

Of course to have a n Ethernet manageable one would be the cat’s meow. Then we 
could authorize the subscribers individually, like a CATV CMTS.

 

But since  our network is run as a hotspot the size of half a state, they still 
have to get past the captive portal anyway so that’s why Manageable is just 
something really nice but not required.

 

The WiFi works pretty well in the boats, but some of these yachts have 
basements that the WiFi doesn’t get into or the boats are so big (120-150ft) 
the coverage is poor.

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org   
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failedpower companyBPL 
trials)

 

 

I'll look them up next week - yes - had as many as four connected.  There was 
no "master" unit, it was all one big "bridge", like having them all on a switch

 

- Original Message - 

From: ralph   

To: 'WISPA General List'   

Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:53 AM

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failedpower companyBPL 
trials)

 

Thanks Jay.

Did you ever try to get more than one remote to connect to a master without 
doing anything special?

That’s my ultimate goal. And do you remember the model unit you used?

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org   
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 1:43 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power companyBPL 
trials)

 

 

Ralph - pretty sure we used the netgear model units and they did not require 
anything more than plug and pray.  Worked great.

 

- Original Message - 

From: ralph   

To: 'WISPA General List'   

Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:39 PM

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power companyBPL 
trials)

 

Then you may not be talking about what I am talking about.

I think it may have been Duke Power who did some of the 1st generation 
trial/pilots I speak of.  It was quite a while ago,  It was too expensive, 
didn’t work well, and, well, yes it certainly did interfere with licensed users 
(Ham Radio and International broadcasters). It is a part 15 service. It 
transmits on unshielded wires on approximately 2-30 MHz. This covers almost all 
low frequency Ham bands, Interna