It Don't look good for BPL

For a few months now, Verizon has been airing ads in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area blasting the FCC's wishy washy stance on high speed internet service. The gist of the ad describes how Verizon has spent millions of dollars in R&D to develop high speed fiber-optic networks and then gets mixed signals from the FCC on broadband policy. The ad goes on to implore the FCC commissioners to take a more firm stance on broadband policy. One can only assume they are refering to the recent gushing by the commission over proposed BPL technology. Looks like we're not the only ones getting shafted by Washington.

 

Speaking of BPL again and Verizon. I have Verizon DSL. The speed is as advertized, up to 1.5mb/s, this one does about 1475. Fast enough for me, however, go find someone with the modem required for broadband over the phone lines, a mini version of PLC.
With this modem, a Wirespeed B-90 210015 D4, I find that it meets the "Requirements" of FCC part 68, which means it basically can interfere with just about everything within approximently 50-100 feet of your house! Not to mention all the "other" additional line noise that in the last year has increased.
The modem has birdies from approximently 3mhz right thru 28mhz. 50/9 on 7.255 and a hundred others. Want to operate the ham bands without all this additional noise, I have to remove the power from the modem.
So much for BPL,PLC and the "mini version" of PLC DSL modems. I don't expect to see the fiber optic around this area for a long while, besides I'm sure Verizon's mouth's are drooling over the increased profits on the horizon.
If they spent all these millions on fiber, why isn't it active in an area like mine and Im only 2 miles from the switch?
I've never so much have seen an ad that they even have it here.
So much for rambling, the gist is BPL,PLC, it's going to limit not only our amatuer but short wave listening by the generation of birdies and spurs that are allowed by the FCC at a level that is totally unacceptable. In my opinion, If the amatuer community had hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby in Washington D.C. and other areas, we could get them to pass rules to allow communication using cow manure and a slingshot, wait a minute, that sounds like daytime television.
Guess that's why Im on the internet communicating this way more and more and not talking on 20 or 40m. The only solution which is too costly, move away from the cities.
73 N2ACX

 

Only reason Verizon, or the other telco's would talk bad about BPL is because they view it as a threat.

BPL can do what DSL can't -- offer broad band service to customers that go beyond the 15k or 18k distance limitation.

Wireless broadband, such as MMDS using the new equipment, can provide options that extend beyond the reach of traditional wireline -- unfortunately the license spectrum cost $$$ and it would also require $$$ to set up transmission sites be effective.

Sat Broadband, such as Directway or DirectPC also offer a broadband alternative -- equipment is costly and monthly fees, well lets just say they'll take a bite out of your wallet.

BPL is the electric companies way of getting new revenue into their pipeline. $$$ is driving this -- the only way to reverse the momentum is to show the cost of dealing with the deployments will exceed the benefit.

Anyone know what the latest update is -- in other words, has the FCC had their clue shot?

 

This is for real:

First BPL City
Broadband-via power-line in Manassas

Written by Karl Bode

The nation's first non-trial broadband via power-line city is set to go live next week. Residents of Manassas, Virginia will see speeds between 560 and 840kbps for $27.00 a month - via their electrical outlets. The BPL (broadband via power-line) connectivity is provided by a company called Prospect Street broadband, who just recently completed the first phase of their BPL deployment, reports local news sources. The system will cost the region between $250,000 and $350,000 to implement.

Amateur radio has of course made their concerns heard. In a letter faxed to Manassas Mayor Marvin L. Gillum, ARRL CEO David Sumner warns: "Your advisors no doubt have made the Council fully aware of the great potential for radio interference from such a system." "Tests conducted by ARRL technical personnel have shown that the system planned to be deployed in Manassas causes harmful interference to the Amateur Radio service."

Opponents to such systems argue that broadband over power-line sends wideband radio signals over poorly shielded wires not particularly designed with high-speed internet in mind. The result is that these 2 to 80 MHz signals are broadcast into neighborhoods as if from antennas from every participating power-line, interfering with radio communications (be it amateur or emergency) and polluting HF bands.

The resulting noise, occasionally 10,000 times higher than acceptable levels in some world-wide trials, has in some cases been enough to disable 20-meter monobanders on high-rise buildings, or - in one case in Austria - disable Red Cross communications during an emergency disaster response drill. While there are plenty of trials ongoing in the U.S., Manassas is the first to deploy a city-wide BPL system.

It's estimated that the city of Manassas could bring in $4.5 million over the life of the 10-year contract with Prospect Street Broadband, so the shift toward BPL hasn't seen many delays, interference or not. The remainder of the city is expected to be completely wired with the service within three to four months, according to local officials. Area leaders were quick to vote on city-wide deployment after participants in a local trial were enthusiastic about the system's performance.

The system is utilizing technology from Main.net, a BPL provider that offers related utility connectivity to 40 power utilities in more than 20 countries. There are BPL alternatives whose emissions occur within the unlicensed 5 GHz ISM band (these systems utilize wireless for the last mile), and are less likely to cause interference; one such deployment, which also offers better speeds, is being tested by California Pacific Gas and Electric and Corridor Systems.

According to local officials, roughly four-hundred users have signed up for the service before Prospect Street Broadband even began advertising connectivity. The company indicates it should be able to obtain profitability if ten percent of eligible households sign up for service. Business tiers with speeds up to 1.5mbps are also available.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N2ACX @ Jan. 09 2004,18:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">With this modem, a Wirespeed B-90 210015 D4, I find that it meets the &quot;Requirements&quot; of FCC part 68, which means it basically can interfere with just about everything within approximently 50-100 feet of your house! Not to mention all the &quot;other&quot; additional line noise that in the last year has increased.
 The modem has birdies from approximently 3mhz right thru  28mhz. 50/9 on 7.255 and a hundred others. Want[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
A small correction: Part 68 protects the telephone network from improperly designed equipment, not radio users from interference. And oddly enough, the Westell B-90 ADSL modems (and others) can't meet Part 68 requirements; a waiver was granted.
(See http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da001430.doc )

Part 15 protects radio users. Its requirements are not hard to meet, it doesn't keep HF interference levels really low and it is enforced only upon receipt of complaints by the FCC. You CAN get the FCC to go to bat for you -- but you have to complain, through the proper channels, before the Commission can do anything.

We are fortunate enough just now to have Riley Hollinsgsworth on our side over there.  When he is not too busy because we break the Rules, he can help with those who bother US.

Of course one of the things he'll ask when we complain to him is whether we have things plugged into FCC-compliant equipment. It'll be hard to get him to help put down interference if the computer is assembled in someone's spare bedroom (or our own) from unapproved parts bought from three Chinese guys with an &quot;import&quot; business who sell stuff at flea markets. And this is often the case. We often also use really noisy switching-mode power supplies for our electronic goodies-- and I imagine he'll get around to asking about that, too.

Another thing he'll ask he'll ask is, &quot;What have you done to get the manufacturer involved in fixing the problem?&quot; Riley sounds like an old-fashioned sort of guy, and I think he expects that if it's important enough to summon the mighty minions of the Federal Government, we'd have better gotten off our dead rears and done something beforehand. Besides, it is a LOT easier to press a Federal case -- and that's what it is -- when you can demonstrate non-cooperation by folks who make junk.

I am not familiar with your modem from its model number, but if I recall correctly, a Westell ADSL modem I saw where I used to work had a manufacturers requirement that it be 20 dB BETTER than FCC Part 15 requirements.  Westell Widespeed modems I see on a Google search meet Part 15 Class B (residential) limits and usually (this is important) also the European EMI requirements, which are somewhat more stringent.  


Cortland