[LINK] BPL

[stephen at melbpc.org.au]

Hi Robin,

Thanks for your 3 impersonal and non-name-calling replies :)

Is it possible one can have NO special interest in ANY system
in particular, and like/wish to investigate ALL systems via Link?

That is, one didn't write 'paid-for' reports which found against BPL.

And have NO particular vested interest in ANY technology what-so-ever.

But, half an hour ago a local Telco told me in person (you have their
phone number) that their BPL system worked fine for a number of years
but 'very' fine margins, and the BB Connect scheme, ended their trial.

But, some people on Link say it's quote, 'technically impossible' and
a 'load of crap'  Given that and with ZERO vested interest, would you 
wonder if such comments were in the best Linker tradition & interests?

Whatever. But after three occasions of un-returned personal abuse one
may prefer some did not engage with one, for Link discussion & debate.
Haha, first time i've said that on Link, even during the Mr Todd days.

Now the IEEE have just ratified BPL standards, let's you and i simply 
agree to wait and see what happens to emerging BPL technologies. Yes?

Not that i care a lot, but obviously we won't agree and abuse doesn't
make for useful & interesting BPL discussions.  So, shall we move on?

And, the 'white space' raised on link a while ago is also interesting.

Cheers,
Stephen


> Hi Stephen,
> 
> Your optimism for BPL is like an eerily eternal Energizer Bunny.
> 
> If there was some way of surrounding you and your optimism for BPL
> with photovoltaic cells or connecting it to an alternator, this would
> be a source of everlasting energy.
> 
> I have some idea of your frustration with being stuck on dial-up and
> I guess your unreasonable optimism for BPL is based on the notion
> that there is no other way but BPL to improve broadband in the bush.
> 
> Satellite is one way.  Wimax is another.
> 
> A promising new field is "white space" in the UHF band - mesh
> networks carefully using UHF TV channel frequencies far from where
> those frequencies are actually used.
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=UHF&as_epq=white+space
> 
> 
> BPL gear has been built and the technical standards for it are in a
> very early stage of development.  It is difficult or impossible to
> make worldwide standards since the powerline distribution structure
> in the USA and other 110 to 120V countries is completely different to
> that in the 220 to 240 volt countries.  Also, the conditions are
> radically different for overhead and for underground cables.
> 
> That BPL gear is about as technically advanced as it ever could be,
> since it uses the best modulation techniques and presumably some
> protocols well suited to the requirements.
> 
> You can connect two of the things in close proximity and then get
> their so-called "200 Mbps" data rate.  But the real data rate is a
> lot less, due to noise, distortion, protocol overhead, forward error
> correction etc. and the switching times between upstream and
> downstream usage of the frequencies.
> 
> What no-one can do is deploy these boxes on real powerlines to
> achieve real broadband performance.
> 
> If BPL at real broadband speeds was physically possible, in a robust,
> reliable, cost-effective manner, we would know all about it. There
> would be services all over the place.
> 
> There aren't and there won't be, because the nature of the cables is
> at odds with what would be required for that to happen.
> 
> 
> > Agreed :)
> > 
> > And, far be it for ME to dispute your firmly held theoretical beliefs.
> 
> The absence of broadband BPL services has nothing to do with my
> beliefs.  If it was possible, it would be widespread by now.
> 
> 
> > Whatever, all these people should be told it's a 'technical 
impossibility'
> > 
> > I'm sure they would be fascinated with your mathematical 
theories/beliefs.
> > 
> > Thus, let's just agree to disagree for now, guys, amicably and 
peacefully.
> > 
> > It takes one too long, over a 48kps dial up, to seek any more info re 
BPL.
> 
> The limitation is not the speed of your connection.  The limitation
> is that you want to repeatedly talk-up and promote unreasonable
> optimism about a hype-laden technology which has never worked - on a
> high-quality public mailing list where it is expected that people who
> discuss things are actually interested in learning about the subject
> at hand.
> 
> You display no evidence of such interest.   So don't be surprised if
> I and maybe other folks tend to ignore you in the future, or fail to
> go to the trouble we would with other Link people to discuss things
> in detail.
> 
>   - Robin
> 


Message sent using MelbPC WebMail Server