I had a pair of the TPLink AV500 that worked for a while (35Mbps or so real throughput in my house). Then I needed to reboot them every week or so. Finally they stopped working and I switched to wireless.
-Hal On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Hass, Douglas A. <d...@franczek.com> wrote: > 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<http://www.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 <mailto:ralphli...@bsrg.org> > To: 'WISPA General List' <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> > 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 <mailto:ralphli...@bsrg.org> > To: 'WISPA General List' <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> > 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> > [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 <mailto:ralphli...@bsrg.org> > To: 'WISPA General List' <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> > 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 > > > > 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> > [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 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 <ralphli...@bsrg.org<mailto: > ralphli...@bsrg.org>> 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<mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > -- > > > -- > SCS > Clay Stewart > CEO, Tye River Farms, Inc., > DBA Stewart Computer Services > 434.263.6363 O > 434.942.6510 C > cstew...@stewartcomputerservices.com<mailto: > cstew...@stewartcomputerservices.com> > “We Keep You Up and Running” > Wireless Broadband > Programming > Network Services > ________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org<mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > ________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org<mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > ________________________________ > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Harold Bledsoe
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
