[Liberator]

This particular item has been on my radar for a while as I enjoy listening to AM radio and several AM show hosts are Hams.  While I claim no expertise in the area, the more I read about it, the more I dislike the idea.  

Besides the destructive potential it has for PUBLIC RADIO FREQUENCIES and well as Government frequencies, there are issues with possible non-sanctioned surveilance by official agencies for "terroism prevention"(Think Carnivore on a mass scale).

I have collected several links for your perusal.  Please, with so many other ways to bring broadband internet to outlying areas there is no need for drastic action like this.  It's a "get-by" to keep from investing in real, long-term, higher quality infrastructure in low profit density areas so they(the Telecoms) can rape the consumer even more than they already are.

Please, I'm begging you to contact your representatives/senators/parliment members/ect  and urge them to help us prevent the destruction of a major national resource.

Link 1 Link 2
Link 3

[Knight Templar]

Um, how about "No." ?

I just got Broadband through the phone line, and it ro)(0rs ten times as fast as my wdsl connection.

Being able to play Halo-Multi in the middle of the day if I want > Crappy AM radio.

[Liberator]

You say that until the firemen can't radio for more trucks and your house burns down.  This is a serious issue.

[Knight Templar]

Firemen will all have PDAs or Cellular communications by then. Or be hiveminded. I don't think my broadband connection could compete with The Hivemind™.

[Ghostavo]

Er... move over to higher/lower frequencies?

[Liberator]

Higher and Lower frequencies are reserved/do not have the requisite properties.  You people are good little "Broadband at any cost" toadies aren't you?  What happens if the cellular network goes down or their in an area that doesn't have good cellular service?  Shortwave is the only perfectly reliable long-range communication technology, you don't even need a microprocessor.

[Ghostavo]

Liberator, so have you thought that maybe, just maybe, one of those lower or higher frequencies, just maybe, are reserved for essencial services (firemen for example) and won't get affected?

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Liberator
You people are good little "Broadband at any cost" toadies aren't you?  

When it gets me a download of 4,000 kb/s, yes...

[Turnsky]

y'know, there's something about data transmission coming in over high-voltage power lines that irks me to no end.. just can't put my finger on it though..

ooh!. i know.. your connection would be more buggy than winME during brownout conditions, even WITH a UPS hooked up..
i'd much rather have a dedicated data line, than have it coupled with my power..
and the data recieving units would have to separate the power and data frequencies from each other, which would equal into a large power transformer so that damn thing wouldn't fry itself. = mucho weight.

and emergency services use UHF frequencies, not AM.

[WMCoolmon]

Wouldn't there be some slight problems with interference from the power being run through the lines?

[StratComm]

It won't come to pass.  The FCC regulates every component that might create interference, and are especially sensitive to the risks to emergency communication after recent issues involving cell phones bleeding into 911 dispatch transmissions.  Never mind the fact that the signal present in line voltage is neither regular nor fixed; it is approximately a 60Hz sin signal, but horribly distorted in the amplitude range that could be used to transmit information.  All these guys want to do is build broadband on existing infastructure and cut costs, not to create a new product.

[ionia23]

Lib,

What about broadband over cable TV lines?

[kode]

this is definitely making hens out of a feather. It's actually used over here (currently small scale), and it seems to work pretty darn well, I must say.

did you know, that everytime you use a switch in your own home, you create magnetic interference with other electric devices in your home? scary stuff, innit?

[Liberator]

Originally posted by ionia23
Lib,

What about broadband over cable TV lines?

That's fine, I myself used to have a cable modem and will again when I can afford it.  The difference is this:

On a coax line the data stream is coded into the current in the copper core which is then sheilded to prvent RF leakage.  Even the cable on the poles is shielded.  

With BPL, the data is not coded into the current, it's sent as an RF signal through the ambient field generated by HV systems.  The problem is that RF leaks, and the RF that BPL uses can reach all the way around the world and still be intelligible to a recieving party on very low power(a handful of watts).  When you can establish a coax line, DSL, Satellite, or even a Wi Fi tower which can provide secure, pure digital broadband service, why use something as buggy and potentially harmful as BPL?

Also, the FCC is in favor of the bedamned thing why would they stop it.

[ionia23]

Well, the security issue shouldn't be too much of a problem.  Encryption on both ends.  The interference aspect though, isn't there some way to shield that?

[IceFire]

Originally posted by Liberator


That's fine, I myself used to have a cable modem and will again when I can afford it.  The difference is this:

On a coax line the data stream is coded into the current in the copper core which is then sheilded to prvent RF leakage.  Even the cable on the poles is shielded.  

With BPL, the data is not coded into the current, it's sent as an RF signal through the ambient field generated by HV systems.  The problem is that RF leaks, and the RF that BPL uses can reach all the way around the world and still be intelligible to a recieving party on very low power(a handful of watts).  When you can establish a coax line, DSL, Satellite, or even a Wi Fi tower which can provide secure, pure digital broadband service, why use something as buggy and potentially harmful as BPL?

Also, the FCC is in favor of the bedamned thing why would they stop it.

Its a good argument...it would do better to have less ackronyms so those who don't know what they mean can understand you.  I do know what they mean (most of them) and I'm having trouble following

Yes, cable signals by nature need to have some shielding otherwise outside interference is going to cause so much signal attenuation that the signal will be gone.

Even so, none of these broadband solutions are working very well.  Cable, ADSL, powerline, wireless...they all cause some level of intereference or are impinged on by other outside interference. There are some serious problems with all of these wireless technologies...I worry a little bit about what they are going to do with these things.  I can see the important stuff going to fibre optics  whenever possible...

[Liberator]

Not unless you want to spend the time and money involved to seal all the high tension high voltage PLs in the country like coax with layers and layers of plastic and rubber and a Faraday screen.  You could spend half that and install 2 Megabit Cable Modems into every home in America.

Read the literature I provided and you'll understand.

Also, remember, the frequency leakage may not reach as high as AM, the primary frequencies that will be disrupted are the shortwave and HF bands that almost everybody uses somehow.

[HotSnoJ]

[Thorn]

Are you referring to the large version of those "Powerline Routers"?
The ones that plug into a USB port on your machine and the wall jack?
Any machine with one of these on the same circut is on the network? Those things?

[an0n]

With each and every passing second, I hate Lib more and more.

If me getting a 9000Mb/s connection means some redneck can't call his fat-ass wife 3-trailer rows over on his piece of ****, home-build, 1962 KitRadio™ 5000 to tell her how good their daughter sucks dick........well, where do I sign up?