Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
I agree Tom. But, as with all technolgies, they mature and improve. I think the biggest advantage of BPL is that the transport (grid) is already there. Plug & play! BTW: In every meeting I ever went to, when the electric companies chose the vendor, it was usually Main-net and/or Amperion. Why? Because they didnt jumper around the transformer. Jumping from MV to LV is a huge safety concern for them. -RickG On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BPL works... But sure it doesn;t work to its expectations. > Sure you have to repeat it, bypassing transformers and such, maybe as you > say every 1000feet or what ever. > Part of the Cirrent technology's solution was to make the devices to easily > jump over (bypass) the transformers and such. > > However the relevent question is not "whether it works", its whether its > cost effective to deploy, and whether it can scale to the level to justify > the cost. > I beleive the answer is "no". > > The concept of Powerline, is that the Wire is already there, and the > provider saves money and time, by not having to deploy a "New Wire", or any > complicated "fiber termiantion devices". > This concept is flawed, in most cases. The reason is... Fiber is no longer > a mystery to most, and fiber labor and fiber cable is no longer the huge > cost it used to be. In many cases, its less expensive to buy and deploy the > fiber, than it is to pay the line man labor to install the jumpers to bypass > transformers. So why limit to the boddle necks of MV/HV Power line? > > Thats why I said that Powerline is best as a solution coupled with other > solutions. Using the Powerline component ONLY where there are specific cases > that make it more affordable for that specific case or location. > > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:22 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > > >> What brands did you test? Mainnet's worked as promised for us. No, it >> was not 500Mbps but 20+ is very cool. >> -RickG >> >> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> I read your post, I was also involved in the testing. They didn't hit >>> their throughput nor did they achieve any of the interference mask >>> parameters. We tried several versions of this. If you want 512kbps you >>> can >>> do it. But Michael Powell was promising 500 mbps magically flowing >>> through >>> all the power lines and lighting up a whole city. >>> >>> You are not going to get bi directional 500 mbps on high voltage power >>> lines >>> (as promised by some) without causing unacceptable interference and >>> regenerating the signal every 1000 feet. >>> >>> Secondary... as in low voltage... as in 240 volt single phase from >>> transformer to the house does work. Like I said homeplug is a very >>> viable >>> technology. What some people call BPL is secondary BPL. HV BPL is not >>> going to be a viable backhaul technology for a variety of reasons. >>> >>> Yes, secondary BPL barely works with arguably acceptable (by some). Show >>> me >>> a HV system that works as advertised. >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> 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 l
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
Yep, at the expense of the many for the benefit of the few, IMHO. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: RickG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:32:10 -0500 >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/ >--- >[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information. 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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
BPL works... But sure it doesn;t work to its expectations. Sure you have to repeat it, bypassing transformers and such, maybe as you say every 1000feet or what ever. Part of the Cirrent technology's solution was to make the devices to easily jump over (bypass) the transformers and such. However the relevent question is not "whether it works", its whether its cost effective to deploy, and whether it can scale to the level to justify the cost. I beleive the answer is "no". The concept of Powerline, is that the Wire is already there, and the provider saves money and time, by not having to deploy a "New Wire", or any complicated "fiber termiantion devices". This concept is flawed, in most cases. The reason is... Fiber is no longer a mystery to most, and fiber labor and fiber cable is no longer the huge cost it used to be. In many cases, its less expensive to buy and deploy the fiber, than it is to pay the line man labor to install the jumpers to bypass transformers. So why limit to the boddle necks of MV/HV Power line? Thats why I said that Powerline is best as a solution coupled with other solutions. Using the Powerline component ONLY where there are specific cases that make it more affordable for that specific case or location. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > What brands did you test? Mainnet's worked as promised for us. No, it > was not 500Mbps but 20+ is very cool. > -RickG > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> I read your post, I was also involved in the testing. They didn't hit >> their throughput nor did they achieve any of the interference mask >> parameters. We tried several versions of this. If you want 512kbps you >> can >> do it. But Michael Powell was promising 500 mbps magically flowing >> through >> all the power lines and lighting up a whole city. >> >> You are not going to get bi directional 500 mbps on high voltage power >> lines >> (as promised by some) without causing unacceptable interference and >> regenerating the signal every 1000 feet. >> >> Secondary... as in low voltage... as in 240 volt single phase from >> transformer to the house does work. Like I said homeplug is a very >> viable >> technology. What some people call BPL is secondary BPL. HV BPL is not >> going to be a viable backhaul technology for a variety of reasons. >> >> Yes, secondary BPL barely works with arguably acceptable (by some). Show >> me >> a HV system that works as advertised. >> - Original Message - >> From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> 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).
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
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" > 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" >>> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 2:41 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >>> >>> >
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
Everything has it's place. -RickG On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Jonathan Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chuck is right on the spot. > > RF is very demanding both in transmission lines and radiators. We all > know how much discipline we need to invoke when deploying successful RF > links. > > RF on an unbalanced, geometrically variable conductor will barely move > with most being dissipated as heat or radiated away. Chuck is correct > that elevated, balanced three phase lines, as far as the geometry remains > stable, might have some short range applicability when coupled with notch > filters and other carefully designed, customized equipment. Short range > and expensive. That's why it isn't out there. > > The ARRL and other interested parties did observe a number of vendor > products under FCC monitoring...monitoring that was later shown to be > comparable to the Katrina effort. The results were effectively decided in > the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit earlier this > year: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/04/25/10064/?nc=1 > > The momentum for BPL on HV has come from investors who point to the sky > and convince people that the wires, like your cable TV coax, are > conductors and, therefore, should carry RF just like 60Hz. Anecdotal > recollections of bumbling (on both sides, I agree) experiments don't > invalidate Smith Charts and pure science. > > However, the power company has right-of-way and pole-to-pole LOS. Any of > the WISPA members would drool over that geography and would be better > shepherds of the effort to bring broadband to rural areas. > > Meanwhile, I'll go back to my Smith Charts, grid dip meter, SWR > cross-needle meter, and TDR equipment that served me so well all these > years. I run a clean shop. > > . . . J o n a t h a n > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 > Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 4:25 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > > 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" > 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 >&g
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
What brands did you test? Mainnet's worked as promised for us. No, it was not 500Mbps but 20+ is very cool. -RickG On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I read your post, I was also involved in the testing. They didn't hit > their throughput nor did they achieve any of the interference mask > parameters. We tried several versions of this. If you want 512kbps you can > do it. But Michael Powell was promising 500 mbps magically flowing through > all the power lines and lighting up a whole city. > > You are not going to get bi directional 500 mbps on high voltage power lines > (as promised by some) without causing unacceptable interference and > regenerating the signal every 1000 feet. > > Secondary... as in low voltage... as in 240 volt single phase from > transformer to the house does work. Like I said homeplug is a very viable > technology. What some people call BPL is secondary BPL. HV BPL is not > going to be a viable backhaul technology for a variety of reasons. > > Yes, secondary BPL barely works with arguably acceptable (by some). Show me > a HV system that works as advertised. > - Original Message - > From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > 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" >>> 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 >>
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
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" 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" >> 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
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
Chuck is right on the spot. RF is very demanding both in transmission lines and radiators. We all know how much discipline we need to invoke when deploying successful RF links. RF on an unbalanced, geometrically variable conductor will barely move with most being dissipated as heat or radiated away. Chuck is correct that elevated, balanced three phase lines, as far as the geometry remains stable, might have some short range applicability when coupled with notch filters and other carefully designed, customized equipment. Short range and expensive. That's why it isn't out there. The ARRL and other interested parties did observe a number of vendor products under FCC monitoring...monitoring that was later shown to be comparable to the Katrina effort. The results were effectively decided in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit earlier this year: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/04/25/10064/?nc=1 The momentum for BPL on HV has come from investors who point to the sky and convince people that the wires, like your cable TV coax, are conductors and, therefore, should carry RF just like 60Hz. Anecdotal recollections of bumbling (on both sides, I agree) experiments don't invalidate Smith Charts and pure science. However, the power company has right-of-way and pole-to-pole LOS. Any of the WISPA members would drool over that geography and would be better shepherds of the effort to bring broadband to rural areas. Meanwhile, I'll go back to my Smith Charts, grid dip meter, SWR cross-needle meter, and TDR equipment that served me so well all these years. I run a clean shop. . . . J o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 4:25 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL 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" 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 a
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
I read your post, I was also involved in the testing. They didn't hit their throughput nor did they achieve any of the interference mask parameters. We tried several versions of this. If you want 512kbps you can do it. But Michael Powell was promising 500 mbps magically flowing through all the power lines and lighting up a whole city. You are not going to get bi directional 500 mbps on high voltage power lines (as promised by some) without causing unacceptable interference and regenerating the signal every 1000 feet. Secondary... as in low voltage... as in 240 volt single phase from transformer to the house does work. Like I said homeplug is a very viable technology. What some people call BPL is secondary BPL. HV BPL is not going to be a viable backhaul technology for a variety of reasons. Yes, secondary BPL barely works with arguably acceptable (by some). Show me a HV system that works as advertised. - Original Message - From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" 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" >> 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
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" > 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" >>> 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 w
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
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" 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" >> 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,
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" > 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
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
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" 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/ >>
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
One of the electric companies I worked for, I did just that. We used BPL for backhaul and used an AP to catch the local area subscribers. It was great, especially when there are LOS issues. Of course, that was what Amperion's BPL product was all about. Obviously, the same hybrid concept also works on a smaller scale such as a motel. -RickG On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about BPL to transport data to the ap's? > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Brian Rohrbacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 7:09 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > > >>I have a motel I am trying to cover with internet. It's a L shaped >> building 20-30 rooms. What type of bpl solutions would work for this? >> Or maybe wireless is the way to go. >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> 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/
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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
Anyone know if that Teletronics system is still out there? The one that used the existing catv cable and put a small wall plate antenna in each room? Pretty slick... marlon - Original Message - From: "3-dB Networks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 8:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > Brian, > > I'd rather go with this from Motorola: > http://www.motorola.com/Business/US-EN/Business+Product+and+Services/Private > +Broadband+Networks > > Basically it's a DSL type system... reuse the CAT3 wiring in the building > to > deliver 70Mbps full duplex to each room (instead of a shared system) plus > its cheaper than the BPL equipment (and you don't have to hire an > electrician to install it). > > If your interested hit my offlist... I have some powerpoint presentations > on > it. > > Daniel White > 3-dB Networks > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Brian Rohrbacher > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 8:09 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > > I have a motel I am trying to cover with internet. It's a L shaped > building 20-30 rooms. What type of bpl solutions would work for this? > Or maybe wireless is the way to go. > > Brian > > > > > > 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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
How about BPL to transport data to the ap's? marlon - Original Message - From: "Brian Rohrbacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >I have a motel I am trying to cover with internet. It's a L shaped > building 20-30 rooms. What type of bpl solutions would work for this? > Or maybe wireless is the way to go. > > Brian > > > > > 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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
I was hoping someone more educated on these matters would speak up. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jonathan Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 12:04 AM To: "'WISPA General List'" Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > "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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
"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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
close to 3k RickG wrote: Nice but at what price? On 11/14/08, 3-dB Networks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Brian, I'd rather go with this from Motorola: http://www.motorola.com/Business/US-EN/Business+Product+and+Services/Private +Broadband+Networks Basically it's a DSL type system... reuse the CAT3 wiring in the building to deliver 70Mbps full duplex to each room (instead of a shared system) plus its cheaper than the BPL equipment (and you don't have to hire an electrician to install it). If your interested hit my offlist... I have some powerpoint presentations on it. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Brian Rohrbacher Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 8:09 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL I have a motel I am trying to cover with internet. It's a L shaped building 20-30 rooms. What type of bpl solutions would work for this? Or maybe wireless is the way to go. Brian 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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
Good post Tom, A few years back I was directly involved with BPL pilot tests as a consultant to major electric companies nationwide. I really enjoyed those days. I saw all kinds of equipment and to clarify Current Technologies is not the only maker of Medium Voltage WAN products. In fact, in all the pilot tests I was involved with, Current was only chosen once. My favorite manufacturer is Main-net (http://powerline-plc.com) because they didnt jumper around the transformer but rather went through it. Obviously this is a huge safety factor. As far as speed, I saw generation 2 products running 20Mbps and even one product running at 100Mbps. Again this was a several years ago, I'm sure the product has matured since then. 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. Note: Both low and medium voltage products were called PLC until 2003 when the FCC finalized the the acronymn BPL. -RickG On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are two core BPL technology applications. Medium Voltage WAN > distribution, and Low Voltage LAN distribution. > > The Primary Medium Voltage product is made by Current Technologies. They > migrated to a model of being an ISP, or working in direct partnership with > the power companies. > Thus they have no value to offer a WISP. (But their technology works for > many applications). > The secret to their technologoes are easy "jumpers" to jump around the > transformers that kill teh BPL signal. > > The Low Voltage application is also named "PLC". > The Primary innovator of the technology was TelkoNet, who revolutionized it > for service providers. Sense then, Motorola jumped on the bandwagon with > thier PLC offering. I think it may be an OEM or license of Telkonet's > product/technology, but I don't know that for sure. But regardless > MOtorola's product is for equivellent applications as Telkonet's. > The secret of Telkonet, is using inexpensive HomePlug chipsets, and putting > them on steroids, (sorta like Alvarion does to a Atheros chipset). > > Telkonet's PLC solution is HIGHLY effective for in building distribution. We > have served buildings with as many as 400 tenants, successfully with the > technology. (up to 7mbps speed per grid). > > PLC is NOT for wide area distribution or community distribution as the > signal can't traverse across a transformer. > > Homeplug has hadd 200mbps chipsets out for a couple years, and all teh PLC > products had a migration path to it. Have not followed up with that, nor > tried any gear if it had become available. > > My tale on BPL is that the cost to deploy it is huge. For most WAN > distribution, you might as well jsut deploy the fiber, as the Speed that BPL > delviers is just not equivellent. > BPL is usually best used in combination with other technologoes, such as > with wireless and fiber. This is one of the reasons Power companies are not > jumping for joy about the technology. They aren't really prepared to be a > full scale connectivity ISP end to end. Just because the billing system and > last mile wire is there, doesn't mean all the other components are. > > In my opinion for BPL to take off, it really needs partnership models > between power companies, equipment makers, and ISP fiber/wireless > connectivity providers. > > The reason BPL can take off is There is a cost justification to the > Power company, just for meter reading alone. But not necessarilly a cost > jsutification to build out the speed needed for large scale hgih capacity > Broadband to compete with FTTH. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Dennis Burgess - LinkTechs.net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 5:41 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > > >> Is there and BPL solutions out there that WISPs could take advantage of >> yet? Maybe beam in some high speed and then go to the community or >> subdivision? >> >> -- >> * Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer >> WISPA Board Member - wispa.org <http://www.wispa.org/> >> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services* >> *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net >> <http://www.linktechs.net/> >> >> */ Link Technologies, Inc is offering LIVE Mikrotik On-Line Training
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
Nice but at what price? On 11/14/08, 3-dB Networks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brian, > > I'd rather go with this from Motorola: > http://www.motorola.com/Business/US-EN/Business+Product+and+Services/Private > +Broadband+Networks > > Basically it's a DSL type system... reuse the CAT3 wiring in the building to > deliver 70Mbps full duplex to each room (instead of a shared system) plus > its cheaper than the BPL equipment (and you don't have to hire an > electrician to install it). > > If your interested hit my offlist... I have some powerpoint presentations on > it. > > Daniel White > 3-dB Networks > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Brian Rohrbacher > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 8:09 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > > I have a motel I am trying to cover with internet. It's a L shaped > building 20-30 rooms. What type of bpl solutions would work for this? > Or maybe wireless is the way to go. > > Brian > > > > > > 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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
On Nov 14, 2008, at 10:09 AM, Brian Rohrbacher wrote: >>I have a motel I am trying to cover with internet. It's a L >>shaped building 20-30 rooms. What type of bpl solutions would >>work for this? Or maybe wireless is the way to go. MOST of these smaller hotels that I have dealt with have some sort of access hallway behind or betwen the rooms. This is where they go to work on plumbing and such. I have been placing APs in this area with pretty good success. -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * 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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
hi Brian, Just curious why you wouldn't go with a wired solution? Seems like a $200 switch and a box of Cat5 would be an easy fix. Suppose you would want to add some wifi support to it, also. (Open-Mesh, StarOS, or Mikrotik?) One item I picked up from the original media article was that there are only 5000 customers using BPL nationwide. Oh, any idea what happened to that BPL roll out in Grand Ledge? I know the Shpigler Group received a $520,000 loan from the Michigan Broadband Development Authority, but I just looked and can't find a company selling service there now. -John On Nov 14, 2008, at 10:09 AM, Brian Rohrbacher wrote: > I have a motel I am trying to cover with internet. It's a L shaped > building 20-30 rooms. What type of bpl solutions would work for this? > Or maybe wireless is the way to go. 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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
It depends what the expectations are, and what infrastructure you have accesss to, what challenges there are in gaining coverage. Telkonet can be bought from Tessco. CPEs are around $170 each, but the back end is the significantly more expensive component. ($3000-$5000) If wireless coverage can be gotten to the rooms, it will be cheaper to deploy. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Brian Rohrbacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >I have a motel I am trying to cover with internet. It's a L shaped > building 20-30 rooms. What type of bpl solutions would work for this? > Or maybe wireless is the way to go. > > Brian > > > > > 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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
There are two core BPL technology applications. Medium Voltage WAN distribution, and Low Voltage LAN distribution. The Primary Medium Voltage product is made by Current Technologies. They migrated to a model of being an ISP, or working in direct partnership with the power companies. Thus they have no value to offer a WISP. (But their technology works for many applications). The secret to their technologoes are easy "jumpers" to jump around the transformers that kill teh BPL signal. The Low Voltage application is also named "PLC". The Primary innovator of the technology was TelkoNet, who revolutionized it for service providers. Sense then, Motorola jumped on the bandwagon with thier PLC offering. I think it may be an OEM or license of Telkonet's product/technology, but I don't know that for sure. But regardless MOtorola's product is for equivellent applications as Telkonet's. The secret of Telkonet, is using inexpensive HomePlug chipsets, and putting them on steroids, (sorta like Alvarion does to a Atheros chipset). Telkonet's PLC solution is HIGHLY effective for in building distribution. We have served buildings with as many as 400 tenants, successfully with the technology. (up to 7mbps speed per grid). PLC is NOT for wide area distribution or community distribution as the signal can't traverse across a transformer. Homeplug has hadd 200mbps chipsets out for a couple years, and all teh PLC products had a migration path to it. Have not followed up with that, nor tried any gear if it had become available. My tale on BPL is that the cost to deploy it is huge. For most WAN distribution, you might as well jsut deploy the fiber, as the Speed that BPL delviers is just not equivellent. BPL is usually best used in combination with other technologoes, such as with wireless and fiber. This is one of the reasons Power companies are not jumping for joy about the technology. They aren't really prepared to be a full scale connectivity ISP end to end. Just because the billing system and last mile wire is there, doesn't mean all the other components are. In my opinion for BPL to take off, it really needs partnership models between power companies, equipment makers, and ISP fiber/wireless connectivity providers. The reason BPL can take off is There is a cost justification to the Power company, just for meter reading alone. But not necessarilly a cost jsutification to build out the speed needed for large scale hgih capacity Broadband to compete with FTTH. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Dennis Burgess - LinkTechs.net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 5:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > Is there and BPL solutions out there that WISPs could take advantage of > yet? Maybe beam in some high speed and then go to the community or > subdivision? > > -- > * Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer > WISPA Board Member - wispa.org <http://www.wispa.org/> > Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services* > *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net > <http://www.linktechs.net/> > > */ Link Technologies, Inc is offering LIVE Mikrotik On-Line Training > <http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp>/* > > > > Tom DeReggi wrote: >> Just like everything else There is a useful place for anything, >> somewhere. >> >> BPL is in no way a solution to solve the world's broadband problems. But >> it >> is clearly part of the solution, just like Wireless, DSL, or FTTH. >> Some of the case studies here in Potomac Maryland were very successful, >> and >> in other areas just down the street, they were not. >> >> What I don't like to see is Municipal or Monopoly Subsidized approaches >> that bank on a single technology for the solution to a given region. >> There is no one-fit-all solution. I See BPL being an overlay to many >> areas, as another competitor to add choice and options for consumers. >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:47 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >> >> >> >>> yeah, BPL is no good. >>> >>> >>> - >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> >>&g
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
Brian, I'd rather go with this from Motorola: http://www.motorola.com/Business/US-EN/Business+Product+and+Services/Private +Broadband+Networks Basically it's a DSL type system... reuse the CAT3 wiring in the building to deliver 70Mbps full duplex to each room (instead of a shared system) plus its cheaper than the BPL equipment (and you don't have to hire an electrician to install it). If your interested hit my offlist... I have some powerpoint presentations on it. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Rohrbacher Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 8:09 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL I have a motel I am trying to cover with internet. It's a L shaped building 20-30 rooms. What type of bpl solutions would work for this? Or maybe wireless is the way to go. Brian 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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
I would put up an AP. - Original Message - From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 9:19 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > Wireless has it's obvious advantages but if you go the BPL route you > can use the Motorola product. Just be sure your not going through mroe > than one distribution panel. To be honest, depending on the wiring, > you may be able to get through a couple of panels. > -RickG > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Brian Rohrbacher > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I have a motel I am trying to cover with internet. It's a L shaped >> building 20-30 rooms. What type of bpl solutions would work for this? >> Or maybe wireless is the way to go. >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> 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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
Wireless has it's obvious advantages but if you go the BPL route you can use the Motorola product. Just be sure your not going through mroe than one distribution panel. To be honest, depending on the wiring, you may be able to get through a couple of panels. -RickG On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Brian Rohrbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a motel I am trying to cover with internet. It's a L shaped > building 20-30 rooms. What type of bpl solutions would work for this? > Or maybe wireless is the way to go. > > Brian > > > > > 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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
I have a motel I am trying to cover with internet. It's a L shaped building 20-30 rooms. What type of bpl solutions would work for this? Or maybe wireless is the way to go. Brian 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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
That would work behind the same distribution panel but to get a subdivision you need access to the substation and equipment made to go through transformers. That would also require cooperation with the local electric provider. My favorite product was http://powerline-plc.com/ -RickG On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Eje Gustafsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Canopy has a BPL just for that. > > http://www.motorola.com/Business/US-EN/Business+Product+and+Services/Wireles > s+Broadband+Networks/Broadband+over+Powerline > > / Eje > CTO > WISP-Router, Inc. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Dennis Burgess - LinkTechs.net > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 4:42 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > > Is there and BPL solutions out there that WISPs could take advantage of > yet? Maybe beam in some high speed and then go to the community or > subdivision? > > -- > * Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer > WISPA Board Member - wispa.org <http://www.wispa.org/> > Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services* > *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net > <http://www.linktechs.net/> > > */ Link Technologies, Inc is offering LIVE Mikrotik On-Line Training > <http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp>/* > > > > Tom DeReggi wrote: >> Just like everything else There is a useful place for anything, >> somewhere. >> >> BPL is in no way a solution to solve the world's broadband problems. But > it >> is clearly part of the solution, just like Wireless, DSL, or FTTH. >> Some of the case studies here in Potomac Maryland were very successful, > and >> in other areas just down the street, they were not. >> >> What I don't like to see is Municipal or Monopoly Subsidized approaches >> that bank on a single technology for the solution to a given region. >> There is no one-fit-all solution. I See BPL being an overlay to many >> areas, as another competitor to add choice and options for consumers. >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:47 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >> >> >> >>> yeah, BPL is no good. >>> >>> >>> - >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:10 PM >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >>> >>> >>>> When I was involved with BPL (back then known as PLC), all I ever >>>> heard was HAM radio interference. >>>> -RickG >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Jeff Broadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081112/tec_broadband_over_power_lines.html?.v=6 >>>>> >>>>> Jeff Broadwick >>>>> Sales Manager, ImageStream >>>>> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) >>>>> +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) >>>>> +1 574-935-8488 (Fax) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > > >>>>> 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: wirel
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
I agree. Too bad it was given much of a chance to mature. -RickG On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just like everything else There is a useful place for anything, > somewhere. > > BPL is in no way a solution to solve the world's broadband problems. But it > is clearly part of the solution, just like Wireless, DSL, or FTTH. > Some of the case studies here in Potomac Maryland were very successful, and > in other areas just down the street, they were not. > > What I don't like to see is Municipal or Monopoly Subsidized approaches > that bank on a single technology for the solution to a given region. > There is no one-fit-all solution. I See BPL being an overlay to many > areas, as another competitor to add choice and options for consumers. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:47 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > > >> yeah, BPL is no good. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> ---------- >> From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:10 PM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >> >>> When I was involved with BPL (back then known as PLC), all I ever >>> heard was HAM radio interference. >>> -RickG >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Jeff Broadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081112/tec_broadband_over_power_lines.html?.v=6 >>>> >>>> Jeff Broadwick >>>> Sales Manager, ImageStream >>>> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) >>>> +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) >>>> +1 574-935-8488 (Fax) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
Now, now, now. I had a blast with the BPL projects. There is no feeling like simply adding a piece of equipment to an electric substation and instantly lighting up a neighborhood with broadband. -RickG On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > yeah, BPL is no good. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:10 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > >> When I was involved with BPL (back then known as PLC), all I ever >> heard was HAM radio interference. >> -RickG >> >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Jeff Broadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081112/tec_broadband_over_power_lines.html?.v=6 >>> >>> Jeff Broadwick >>> Sales Manager, ImageStream >>> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) >>> +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) >>> +1 574-935-8488 (Fax) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
Canopy has a BPL just for that. http://www.motorola.com/Business/US-EN/Business+Product+and+Services/Wireles s+Broadband+Networks/Broadband+over+Powerline / Eje CTO WISP-Router, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dennis Burgess - LinkTechs.net Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 4:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL Is there and BPL solutions out there that WISPs could take advantage of yet? Maybe beam in some high speed and then go to the community or subdivision? -- * Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org <http://www.wispa.org/> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services* *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net <http://www.linktechs.net/> */ Link Technologies, Inc is offering LIVE Mikrotik On-Line Training <http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp>/* Tom DeReggi wrote: > Just like everything else There is a useful place for anything, > somewhere. > > BPL is in no way a solution to solve the world's broadband problems. But it > is clearly part of the solution, just like Wireless, DSL, or FTTH. > Some of the case studies here in Potomac Maryland were very successful, and > in other areas just down the street, they were not. > > What I don't like to see is Municipal or Monopoly Subsidized approaches > that bank on a single technology for the solution to a given region. > There is no one-fit-all solution. I See BPL being an overlay to many > areas, as another competitor to add choice and options for consumers. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:47 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > > > >> yeah, BPL is no good. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:10 PM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >> >> >>> When I was involved with BPL (back then known as PLC), all I ever >>> heard was HAM radio interference. >>> -RickG >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Jeff Broadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081112/tec_broadband_over_power_lines.html?.v=6 >>>> >>>> Jeff Broadwick >>>> Sales Manager, ImageStream >>>> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) >>>> +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) >>>> +1 574-935-8488 (Fax) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
Is there and BPL solutions out there that WISPs could take advantage of yet? Maybe beam in some high speed and then go to the community or subdivision? -- * Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org <http://www.wispa.org/> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services* *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net <http://www.linktechs.net/> */ Link Technologies, Inc is offering LIVE Mikrotik On-Line Training <http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp>/* Tom DeReggi wrote: > Just like everything else There is a useful place for anything, > somewhere. > > BPL is in no way a solution to solve the world's broadband problems. But it > is clearly part of the solution, just like Wireless, DSL, or FTTH. > Some of the case studies here in Potomac Maryland were very successful, and > in other areas just down the street, they were not. > > What I don't like to see is Municipal or Monopoly Subsidized approaches > that bank on a single technology for the solution to a given region. > There is no one-fit-all solution. I See BPL being an overlay to many > areas, as another competitor to add choice and options for consumers. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:47 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > > > >> yeah, BPL is no good. >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >> -- >> From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:10 PM >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL >> >> >>> When I was involved with BPL (back then known as PLC), all I ever >>> heard was HAM radio interference. >>> -RickG >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Jeff Broadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081112/tec_broadband_over_power_lines.html?.v=6 >>>> >>>> Jeff Broadwick >>>> Sales Manager, ImageStream >>>> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) >>>> +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) >>>> +1 574-935-8488 (Fax) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
Just like everything else There is a useful place for anything, somewhere. BPL is in no way a solution to solve the world's broadband problems. But it is clearly part of the solution, just like Wireless, DSL, or FTTH. Some of the case studies here in Potomac Maryland were very successful, and in other areas just down the street, they were not. What I don't like to see is Municipal or Monopoly Subsidized approaches that bank on a single technology for the solution to a given region. There is no one-fit-all solution. I See BPL being an overlay to many areas, as another competitor to add choice and options for consumers. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > yeah, BPL is no good. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -- > From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:10 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > >> When I was involved with BPL (back then known as PLC), all I ever >> heard was HAM radio interference. >> -RickG >> >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Jeff Broadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081112/tec_broadband_over_power_lines.html?.v=6 >>> >>> Jeff Broadwick >>> Sales Manager, ImageStream >>> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) >>> +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) >>> +1 574-935-8488 (Fax) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
yeah, BPL is no good. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:10 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL > When I was involved with BPL (back then known as PLC), all I ever > heard was HAM radio interference. > -RickG > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Jeff Broadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081112/tec_broadband_over_power_lines.html?.v=6 >> >> Jeff Broadwick >> Sales Manager, ImageStream >> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) >> +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) >> +1 574-935-8488 (Fax) >> >> >> >> >> 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/
Re: [WISPA] IBM backs BPL
When I was involved with BPL (back then known as PLC), all I ever heard was HAM radio interference. -RickG On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Jeff Broadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081112/tec_broadband_over_power_lines.html?.v=6 > > Jeff Broadwick > Sales Manager, ImageStream > 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) > +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) > +1 574-935-8488 (Fax) > > > > > 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] IBM backs BPL
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081112/tec_broadband_over_power_lines.html?.v=6 Jeff Broadwick Sales Manager, ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) +1 574-935-8488 (Fax) 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/
