To: | aa6yq@ambersoft.com |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [TowerTalk] BPL: Presidential Backing |
From: | tongaloa <tongaloa@alltel.net> |
Date: | Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:43:18 -0400 |
List-post: | <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com> |
Dave Bernstein wrote:There is nothing we do in HF that can't be done more effectively withThis argument applies to BPL! HF for broadband is a crazy idea. Already we have NTIA recommending set aside frequencies for govt users and a web interface for interference management by other spectrum users. Does this make BPL look like an attractive solution to someone considering an investment? The "BPL is bad because it interferes with HFPerhaps if "HF radio" means nothing more than a bunch of old farts talkign on the radio... But, 'BPL is bad because it interferes with HF' is THE argument. It's not just about 'hobby hams'. It's about destroying a resource for which there is no alternative. Radio astronomy including neutrino showers, upper atmosphere wind studies, meteor studies, long distance emergency communications, radio navigation, and these are just off the top of my head. Yes, amateur radio comes into play. Hams are a resource that is available if needed. without access to the spectrum, there will be no hams familiar with HF comms when BPL is 'turned off' because HF comms are needed. itsI can direct you to a professor at Ga Tech who will argue this one with you. With rare exception the ONLY kids who are able understand how things work are the kids who tinker. His job, in addition to EE professor, is motivating secondary school kids with an interest in technology and science! No, he's not an 'old fart! The economics of wiring are not a major impediment. The cable TV companies did fine withoutUniversal high-speed internet connectivity is vital to our progress in multiple dimensions, from health care to productivity to human interaction. Its also a huge business opportunity for a telecom industry that executed poorly during the last business cycle. BPL is a technically flawed approach, but the "last mile" problem is a serious impediment. BPL's exploitation of "existing wiring" generates broad appeal and interest, making it all-too-easy to assume that the technical problems can be overcome. It's a bandwagon no politician and few CEOs can resist. existing wiring. The phone companies did fine without existing wiring. Adding fiber for last mile offers a huge increase in bandwidth. BPL doesn't. We will not stop BPL by invoking "spectrum preservation" or "what aboutI agree with you here. Look at a company called Flarion and deployment in Raleigh Durham area. 3mbps to cell phone users. It's wonderful! Service is competitively priced with current CDMA-2000 offerings of SPRINT and Verizon. Radio makes more sense for the last mile because any company deploying has an opportunity to capture mobile users too. There is a small company in Hawaii working in this direction with mesh networks. The challenge is obvious, and hams are in a great position to be part of the solution. Its won't be a quick fix, but few good things rarely are... _______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA. _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk |
Previous by Date: | RE: [TowerTalk] BPL: Presidential Backing, Dave Bernstein |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [TowerTalk] BPL: Presidential Backing, Jim Brown |
Previous by Thread: | RE: [TowerTalk] BPL: Presidential Backing, Dave Bernstein |
Next by Thread: | Re: [TowerTalk] BPL: Presidential Backing, Bill NY9H |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |