I'm talking MV & LV. HV is not there (yet) AFAIK. There were 105 pilot tests in 2004, of those, I was involved with several deployments. 5 ended up serving the public. Those are some happy customers! I met them. I agree BPL was oversold but then what technology isnt? As far as bandwidth, the source can be from multiple locations in a mesh topology. The end user's "modem" selects the best path to the source. Therefore, you are not limited to 20Mbps. As far as repeaters, G2 went 1800 wire feet. G3 was supposed to at least double that. Big deal, the units were cheap ($150). Depending on the topology, it could be more or less costly than Canopy and no installation! You can literally mail the "modem" to the end user! Besides, while I am wireless guy, wireline is better. At any rate, the purpose of my post was just to be sure the record is straight. I still say BPL is a great technology and will be a viable bandwidth source in the future. -RickG
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
