What do you call BPL? HV or MV or LV? LV works. I don't call that BPL. It isn't a method to magically distribute broadband to a city. It is only a way to use the power drop as a way to get into the house. Some of those systems used Motorola Canopy to get to the distribution point.
MV worked a bit in some of the deployments. The most successful one that I heard of allowed about 512 kbps. I don't recall what the guys in Texas were using, but it reportedly got up into the 20-30 Mbps range (with repeaters every 1000 feet). That is what I am talking about and what I was involved in testing. It is not economically feasible and you have to put up a bunch of technology to feed a neighborhood. And then you only have 20-30 Mbps to share amongst the neighbors. I can do the same with a Motorola Canopy 400 series for a very small fraction of what BPL on MV costs. HV was the pie in the sky, using the magnetic fields around the power lines as a containment structure for a microwave signal. Hundreds of Mbps. Lab oddity, but picked up by the press. Which one of these are we talking about here? ----- Original Message ----- From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > Chuck, > > It's as though you didnt read my post! > > BPL works - with acceptable interference - I saw it with my own eyes > along with dozens of skeptical ham operators. Theory does not matter, > those issues are conquered. Seeing is believing. > > -RickG > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> One huge reason, powerlines are not constant impedance to RF. Nor are >> they >> balanced. This is like trying to pump natural gas down the water lines. >> Pipe, right? What's the problem? >> >> It is never going to ever work as well as balanced transmission lines, >> let >> alone coax or fiber. And it is going to leak so much that the American >> Red >> Cross in Afghanistan will be able to detect the static on their HF rigs. >> This has been proven time and time again. >> >> You can get BPL to work over a short range (like a mile) if it is running >> on >> a three phase line and the line is very balanced. Once it hits a cap >> bank, >> regulator, transposition, transformer or anything, you have to terminate >> the >> signal and figure a way to bypass the obstruction. >> >> Once you put it on a single phase line you might as well go back to the >> old >> G-Line concept (another oddity that ultimately failed). Really BPL is >> nothing more than G-Line. As long as you don't care about vomiting all >> over >> the RF spectrum you can do whatever you want. >> >> I actually do listen to AM radio. I want to listen to short-wave and ham >> if >> I decide to do so. A half baked idea like HV bpl has no place in ruining >> valuable spectrum that is absolutely necessary in the event of an >> emergency. >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 2:41 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >> >> >>>I disagree. I personally saw BPL work and work very well. As far as >>> setting up a bunch of dragonwaves, you must have line of sight. As far >>> as range, whats the point? Ethernet is only rated at 100 meters and it >>> is widely used. BPL's range is much farther than that. It's all >>> realitive. The powergrid is already setup & ready to go, why not use >>> it? Shouldnt we utilize any and all resources to their fullest >>> potential? To do otherwise is wasteful. >>> >>> BTW: BPL is more widely used and accepted in many other countries >>> abroad. Several of our potential vendors were non-US. They couldnt >>> figure out the hold up is here in the states. >>> >>> -RickG >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> BPL on HV was and is a stupid idea. HV infrastructure was not built >>>> with >>>> the idea of being a transmission line for RF. To get any kind if speed >>>> you >>>> have to use lots of power, even then it is very very short range. You >>>> might >>>> as well set up a whole bunch of dragonwaves in a drop and insert >>>> system. >>>> It >>>> would be cheaper and work better. >>>> >>>> The idea of using natural gas distribution lines as circular waveguides >>>> is a >>>> much more viable technology. But you don't see that getting deployed >>>> either. >>>> >>>> BPL on HV is a lab experiment that caught the eye of Michael Powell and >>>> got >>>> talked about. Nothing more. On the secondary side it is nothing more >>>> than >>>> homeplug. That is viable and deployed and does just fine. >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 1:32 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >>>> >>>> >>>>> To clarify, by "real interference" I meant they are no worse than >>>>> anything else we deal with. Like any RF transmission, there are >>>>> emmisions, but those can be dealt with just like the way we (WISP's) >>>>> deal with them. The ARRL made a mountain out of molehill and it was >>>>> all political as far as I'm concened. They used the BPL as a scapegoat >>>>> to try and get the electric companies to fix the interference hams >>>>> receive from aging electrical insulators which causes all kinds of >>>>> noise. >>>>> I personally saw a perfect example of the bias against BPL >>>>> interference. A parade of hams came to our pilot test site and claimed >>>>> we were interferering with them then & there. The funny part: We had >>>>> the system turned off! We showed it to them and they were totally >>>>> embarrased and speechless. When we turned the system back on, they >>>>> admitted that the noise was no worse than when it was off. We has >>>>> spectrum analyzers to prove it. There are some hardliners out there >>>>> that would not give up. To make their point they would drive their >>>>> vehicles (equipped with ham radio and whip antenna) within a few feet >>>>> and directly under the powerline and guess what? Give me break. >>>>> Basically, except for a few viable installations still running, BPL >>>>> was killed in it's infancy. Too bad. >>>>> -RickG >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Jonathan Schmidt >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> "You are correct, electric companies saw huge benefits for internal >>>>>> use >>>>>> but the real reason it did not move forward was because electric >>>>>> companies >>>>>> are conservative by nature and they didnt like the heat coming from >>>>>> the >>>>>> ARRL over interference issues, which btw were not real." >>>>>> >>>>>> The interference is real. The ARRL is real and very conservative. >>>>>> And, >>>>>> any conductor carrying RF that isn't a proper, geometrically arranged >>>>>> transmission line, properly terminated in the proper impedance, will >>>>>> radiate and radiate most of its RF energy. Where do you think that >>>>>> goes? >>>>>> And, where do stubs dissipate their RF?...into the 4th dimension? >>>>>> >>>>>> Were it not for careful oversight of the spectrum, we would be back >>>>>> in >>>>>> the >>>>>> stone ages with AM and FM and TV because of interference. Police and >>>>>> fire >>>>>> radios would be hit and miss. Our licensed and unlicensed spectrum >>>>>> would >>>>>> be a mess. >>>>>> >>>>>> Blasting the HF spectrum into random lengths of conductors and stubs >>>>>> at >>>>>> watts of power has proved to be nasty. It isn't just the ARRL...the >>>>>> courts have decided that. >>>>>> >>>>>> It isn't just RF on the power lines, either. You can hear DSL >>>>>> interference in neighborhoods with overhead telephone wiring on poles >>>>>> when >>>>>> you try to listen to local AM stations at night when they are forced >>>>>> to >>>>>> drop their power. The political influence of the Telcos to force >>>>>> through >>>>>> their agenda may be followed by that of the electric companies but it >>>>>> won't be to our advantage. >>>>>> >>>>>> They have the right of way, the poles, and the money. Stringing a >>>>>> fiber >>>>>> along the poles along with the wiring would seem to be a far better >>>>>> and >>>>>> long term strategy than to pretend that wires are wires and that 60Hz >>>>>> is >>>>>> the same as 600,000Hz and the ground return and distribution are >>>>>> compatible architectures. >>>>>> >>>>>> The entire concept is pseudo-science, appealing to those who are >>>>>> easily >>>>>> fooled into thinking wishes become true because it sorta makes sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jonathan Schmidt >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>>> >>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>> >>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>> >>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>> >>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>> >>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
