Does
it bother you that churches have a Mission Statement touting their Core
Values That even the CIA has a Vision In his book Death Sentences How
Clich s Weasel...
You
d think that as the value of business software and software-centric tools
has increased over the past several years that we d see a corresponding
rise in the quality
Editor's note: Michael Powell's
first post below was big hit with AO members and he responded to
some of the comments in his second post.
Michael K.
Powell Chairman, Federal Communications Commission AlwaysOn
Blog July 7, 2004
Traditionally, the economic
justification for government regulation of an industry was market
failure such as monopoly, negative externalities, or unmet social
goals. Government's role in the marketplace should be limited
because markets and entrepreneurs develop innovative solutions far
more efficiently than regulators can. This is the principle behind
opening the communications sector to competition. I am particularly
mindful of this principle as new competitive services—VoIP, for
example—become viable alternatives for customers.
Un- or
less-regulated competition has been a hard pill to swallow for most
incumbents (as well as many regulators) who legitimately question
the regulatory disparity between themselves and startups. But the
correct answer is not to regulate new firms the same way incumbents
have traditionally been regulated. The answer is to "regulate down"
as markets become competitive. Specific market failures that arise,
if any, should be addressed with targeted and specific remedies. My
policy toward regulating nascent communications services is thus
self-reinforcing: for example, a light regulatory touch can bring
VoIP services to market faster and the competitive effects, in turn,
allow us to deregulate traditional service providers.
Our
struggle to define appropriate regulatory regimes to promote
innovation is not limited to the telephone sector. The Commission's
digital television transition is yet another example of how
difficult the struggle can be. The Commission has worked tirelessly
to foster new competitive platforms such as licensed wireless,
Wi-Fi, powerline, satellite, and fiber—just to name a few. On the
other hand, we also recognize the significant contributions and
needs of existing providers.
-- ADVERTISEMENT --
The high-tech community traditionally shied away from regulatory
debates at the FCC and state regulatory commissions. Perhaps staying off
regulators' radar screens has served entrepreneurs well in the past.
Unfortunately, the era of salutary neglect is coming to an end. As
regulators get involved in issues such as VoIP affecting high-tech
industries, the collateral damage can be significant. As technologies,
services, and legal policies converge, it is critical that the high-tech
community understand the issues and engage them.
For example, I
need to hear from the tech community as we transition to digital
television. It may be possible to deploy innovative wireless services in
the unused spectrum between broadcast stations (for example, there is no
channel 3 or channel 6 here in San Francisco). When broadcasting rules
were created in the 1920s, white spaces were required to prevent
interference with adjacent stations in a local market and with stations on
the same channel in other markets. In today's digital world, it may be
possible to deploy low-powered, smart digital wireless devices that would
use these blank spaces without interference. This could mean reclaiming
almost 1/3 the broadcast TV spectrum in crowded markets like Los Angeles
to 2/3 of the spectrum in less crowded markets without interfering with
full-powered TV broadcasts. Broadcasters, however, claim these unused
channels as "their" spectrum. Yet a public policy that favors innovation
and experimentation would seek to open these unused channels to develop
new wireless services…just look at how much value has been created in the
sliver of spectrum that has become Wi-Fi! If the high-tech community
believes that new digital technologies will enable this kind of new
thinking about and use of spectrum, then I need to know that.
One
reason I am participating in AlwaysOn Network's blog is to hear from the
tech community directly and to try to get beyond the traditional inside
the Beltway Washington world where lobbyists filter the techies. I am
looking forward to an open, transparent and meritocracy-based
communication—attributes that bloggers are famous for! Regulated interests
have about an 80 year head start on the entrepreneurial tech community
when it comes to informing regulators what they want and need, but if
anyone can make up for that, Silicon Valley can. This is important not
just for Silicon Valley—it's essential to insure that America has the
best, most innovate communications infrastructure.
Editor's
note. This is the first in a regular series of columns by FCC Chairman
Michael Powell. Chairman Powell will be the opening keynote speaker at the
AO2004 Innovation Summit at Stanford University on July 13 at 6:45pm,
where he'll be joined in a fireside chat by Steve Jurvetson (Draper Fisher
Jurvetson) and Professor Larry Lessig (Stanford University). Check out the
event program.
A limited amount of tickets for
AO2004 are still available. Those interested in buying tickets can
register themselves on the Web, or contact Kathy Osweiler at 415-751-0170
or at kathy@alwayson-network.com
Tell
us what you think of this post using our On or Off rating system. Only
your most recent vote will count.
Member Comments
Catch the tech wave, Powell advises Or
regulators could 'get run over by it,' FCC's outgoing chief tells telecom
program
By Jeff Smith, Rocky Mountain News February 15,
2005
.....cont`n:
He said he doesn't buy the line that parts
of Europe and Asia are whipping the U.S. in communications innovation,
noting that if broadband over power lines proves to be viable, "we'll
leapfrog the whole world."
Powell acknowledged the FCC has made
plenty of mistakes and was "slathered" in criticism for liberalizing media
ownership rules, but he said the agency's decision was misunderstood.
He said the reality is that most Americans watch cable TV and that
the "genuine goal" was to incorporate the power of cable TV and the
Internet into the new rules allowing more broadcast media concentration. A
federal appeals court last year largely reversed the rule changes, marking
one of several setbacks during Powell's generally deregulation-minded
tenure.
Powell said young people strive to connect with each other
and the community as they always have, but now they're using technological
devices. But he also sees negative aspects.
"The one that scares
me the most is privacy and security," he said.
Powell said he has
gone around the country espousing "technical hygiene" to students, or the
importance of protecting themselves and sensitive information about their
identity through good password security and other means.
While
such issues might not resonate with young people now, "it could matter a
lot" when they are adults with mortgages and young children, he said.
Powell said he doesn't know what he's going to do after leaving
the FCC, "and I love the feeling," he quipped. He said his teenage son has
expressed an interest in attending the University of Colorado but mostly
because he wants to snowboard.
Catch the tech wave, Powell advises Or
regulators could 'get run over by it,' FCC's outgoing chief tells telecom
program
By Jeff Smith, Rocky Mountain News February 15,
2005
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell
launched his ideas about technology transforming the way Americans live,
coining the phrase "digital migration" at a speech in Colorado several
years ago.
Powell was back in Boulder on Monday to continue the
theme, in one of his last swan songs before leaving the regulatory agency
this spring.
He said he is "tremendously excited" about the future
because of an emerging, powerful industry player that has no agenda or
specific morality.
It's technology, "and it's ripping up the
customary way we've done things," Powell told a small group of reporters
before speaking at the Silicon Flatirons Telecommunications Program.
Regulators, he said, "can either catch that wave or get run over
by it, but the wave comes through anyway."
For example, he said,
entrepreneurs can't be stopped from creating disruptive innovations such
as music file-sharing software or Internet-based telephone calling.
And, as Powell has noted many times, TiVo digital recording
devices, Xbox video game players and iPod music-downloading devices are
becoming a central part of our children's culture.
Powell said he
doesn't know the last time his 16-year-old son used the land line
telephone in their house.
Cellular phones - now packed with
powerful computer chips that enable users to do everything from browse the
Internet to play games - have become the Swiss Army knife of the
communications industry. (Powell readily acknowledged he didn't coin that
term.)
Powell suggested regulators had better pay attention to the
first digital generation. There's a five-year window before those
15-year-olds become 20-year-olds, and then "nothing will be the same," he
said.
Powell said he was proud of some of the initiatives made
during his eight-year tenure at the FCC, including promoting Wi-Fi and
other wireless Internet access platforms, and broadband over power lines.
He said he doesn't buy the line that parts of Europe and Asia are
whipping the U.S. in communications innovation, noting that if broadband
over power lines proves to be viable, "we'll leapfrog the whole world."
Jim Baller is the founder of the Baller Herbst Law Group and a
leading figure in the field of telecommunications law. He spoke for almost
an hour today with Broadband over Power Line World and Broadband Wireless
Access World about a number of current and long-term issues involving the
deployment of broadband Internet access in the United States.
The
interview covered in particular detail questions relating to the rights
and value of cities deploying broadband access networks for their
citizens. Mr. Baller believes that municipalities can and should be
working vigorously to facilitate broadband access for the citizens and
businesses that reside within them. He also believes that "all
municipalities should have a clear and unequivocal right" to build and/or
operate such systems for the benefit of their citizens and businesses,
themselves, and the current and future economic development of the United
States.
He also believes that, technically speaking, the optimal
configuration for such muni-broadband systems would be a hybrid
arrangement involving the integration of fiber optic and wireless
equipment.
A new model for high-speed broadband transmissions over overhead
power lines estimates that at full handling capacity they can provide bit
rates that far exceed DSL or cable over similar spans.
So-called
broadband power line trials are underway in some parts of the US but
currently run at DSL-comparable speeds of two to three megabits per
second.
Researchers at Pennsylvania State University say that
they've run a computer simulation showing that under ideal conditions the
maximum bit rate is close to a gigabit per second per kilometer on an
overhead, medium voltage, unshielded US power line properly conditioned
through impedance matching.
Shared by a half-dozen homes in a
neighborhood, the gigabit can provide rates in the hundreds of megabits
per second range, says researcher Mohsen Kavehrad, much higher than DSL
and cable.
"If you condition those power lines properly, they're
an omnipresent national treasure waiting to be tapped for broadband
Internet service delivery, especially in rural areas where cable or DSL
are unavailable," says Kavehrad.
Kavehrad predicts that engineering
issues to making power line Internet an alternative to DSL and cable will
be solved. However, it may still not be an economical alternative because
there are interference issues that need to be overcome.
The
researchers presented their findings in Las Vegas, Nevada at the IEEE
Consumer Communications & Networking Conference.
By ART JANIK January 2, 2005 -- To log on, New Yorkers
may soon plug in.
This month, Con Edison will expand a test
program for broadband over power lines, or BPL, a new competitor for
traditional high-speed DSL and cable modem connections.
The BPL
trial is being run in conjunction with Internet service provider EarthLink
and Ambient, which allows for electronics' digital signals to connect
through power lines within a building.
With the networking
equipment in place, some 200 Upper West Side residents will be receiving
letters asking them to participate in the trial.
Since power lines
run everywhere, BPL has the potential to reach more customers, while
eventually helping to drive down the cost of broadband Internet access.
"There's room for an additional player," said David Shpigler,
president of The Shpigler Group, a technology and telecom consulting firm
that is currently working on a number of BPL trials.
"Twenty-five
percent of the residential market currently has broadband. In 10 years,
that number is expected to hit 65 percent," he added. "That means most
people out there do not have a provider right now and are looking to do
so. If BPL providers can capture part of that market, they are looking at
major profits in the long-term."
The cost of providing BPL service
is also less than current broadband offerings, largely because much of the
infrastructure is already in place, Shpigler pointed out.
However,
power companies still have to invest some capital in putting special
equipment into place to make the service work. Broadband price wars aren't
expected for at least another year or two.
BPL technology has been
around since the 1990s, but recent chip advances have made the technology
more readily deployable over a larger power-grid area.
Users plug a small modem into any wall outlet and connect
it to their computer; since electricity travels at a lower frequency than
Internet signals, both can co-exist on the same line.
Data moves
over the power grid with special equipment in place, which has been
developed by companies such as Ambient, Amperion and Current, to maintain
the signal and prevent interference from the electric grid.
In his comments today on Broadband
over Power Line World Mr. Baker states emphatically that these remarks
need to be considered within the context of EarthLink's efforts not to
allow the FCC to point to BPL and its supposed imminent arrival as "the
third-wire" into the home as justification for the FCC's reducing or
eliminating open access regulations that allow EarthLink and other
independent ISPs to make use of existing cable or telephone company
networks to offer Internet access to customers.
Far from
disparaging the prospects for BPL, Mr. Baker said that "EarthLink is as
bullish on BPL as anyone. We are working very hard with Ambient and other
companies to make BPL a market reality."
Asked about allegations
from amateur radio operators that BPL was "intrinsically harmfully
interfering" with their operations, Mr. Baker said "we think that this
issue was pretty well addressed in the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
on broadband over power line."
Asked further about allegations
from amateur radio operators that the FCC was not following up on their
complaints about RF interference from BPL, Mr. Baker said "BPL is a
broadband technology that can potentially serve millions of customers and
that ought not be held hostage by…amateur radio operators or any other
special interest."
Mr. Baker agreed with the statement that
EarthLink's collaboration with Ambient Corporation in a BPL trial
deployment in Briarcliff Manor, New York was "strong and ongoing."
The EarthLink spokesperson concluded the interview by saying
"We're very excited about BPL and are going to continue to work with
Ambient and others to make it a marketplace reality and a choice for
consumers."
You can listen to Mr. Baker's remarks in their
entirety by clicking here.
EarthLink puts its comments on BPL in the context
of its efforts to maintain access rights; spokesperson says EarthLink "is
as bullish on BPL as anyone"
Broadband over Power Line™ #15
Atlanta, Georgia December 28, 2004
Dave
Baker is V.P. for Law and Public Policy at EarthLink, the largest
independent ISP in the U.S.
Mr. Baker spoke today with Broadband
over Power Line World to discuss some comments about the viability of
broadband over power line (BPL) made on behalf of EarthLink in a document
recently filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
On page 1 of that document, EarthLink's outside counsel says:
"However, EarthLink pointed out that cable and DSL still account
for virtually all consumer broadband connections and that none of these
alternative technologies offer[s] a commercially viable alternative today
or in the near future."
On page 18 of the same document, under the
heading "Next generation broadband—EarthLink's assessment," this filing
with the FCC states EarthLink's view that:
"Wireless and BPL
technologies are not likely to be competitive in cost and performance with
cable and DSL over the last mile to the home."
In his comments
today on Broadband over Power Line World Mr. Baker states emphatically
that these remarks need to be considered within the context of EarthLink's
efforts not to allow the FCC to point to BPL and its supposed imminent
arrival as "the third-wire" into the home as justification for the FCC's
reducing or eliminating open access regulations that allow EarthLink and
other independent ISPs to make use of existing cable or telephone company
networks to offer Internet access to customers.
July
19, 2004 (TOKYO) -- NEC Corp announced on July 12, 2004 that it will
launch a field trial of high-speed communications leveraging power line
communication (PLC) technology.
The technology uses power
lines laid in buildings for data communications. The modem to be used for
the experiment is made by Toyo Communication Equipment Co, Ltd, which
offers the highest data rate in the industry, achieving up to 200Mbps. The
demonstrative experiment will be performed in the facility of the Kansai
Electric Power Co, Inc located in Ibaraki city of Osaka-fu,
Japan.
PLC is a communication technique that will allow data
communications to take place just by putting information plugs into
electrical outlets wherever they are, and is considered to be the key
driver to the prevalence of home electric appliances on the net.
NEC's test for high-speed PLC will utilize the high-frequency band
ranging from 2MHz to 30MHz. It is concerned, however, that this frequency
band may interfere with wireless solutions including an amateur radio
system. Therefore, the experiment is permitted only until March 2005 for
the purpose of developing the voltage leakage suppression
technology.
Such a test has been performed by power companies like
Tokyo Electric Power Co and the Kansai Electric Power Co, and home
electric appliance makers like Matsushita Electric Industrial Co, Ltd.
Their common objective is to have the high-frequency band of 2MHz to 30MHz
released to the public for the PLC application. If many test results show
little possibility for the frequency band to interfere with wireless
solutions, the de-regulation of the band may be
accelerated.
Related stories: - Matsushita, TEPCO, Five Others
OK'd by Japan Telecom Ministry to Restart PLC Field Study - Research
Team Develops Narrowband PLC System
Following
our recent article on powerline communications The Power of Powerline :
HomePlug, Intellon and Corinex, we learned that a new 200 Mbps powerline
networking chipset family from DS2 had been announced as a CES Innovations
Honoree for 2005. DS2 (Design of Systems on Silicon, S.A.) is a "silicon
design house" focused on powerline networking, based in Valencia, Spain.
DS2's technology for broadband over powerline (BPL) was described in a
guest article Spain Plugs Into Broadband by Antonio Gomez of Tecnocom.
We recently talked on the phone with Jorge Blasco, DS2's CEO, to
learn more about the company and the new chip. We were especially
interested in the relationship of DS2's new chip with HomePlug AV and
HomePlug BPL, and with the recent announcement of an 85 Mbps chip from
Intellon.
Jorge said DS2 is a member of the HomePlug Powerline
Alliance board of directors, and is participating in field trials with
other HomePlug members. But--as we heard from Intellon and reported
earlier--Jorge said the market is ready for much higher speed powerline
networking products: "We're a pragmatic company, and cannot wait. We have
a 200 Mbps part now; how many months will it take HomePlug AV to go from a
paper spec to silicon? If it comes, and comes in time, and makes it, we'll
do it." .
He said the new chip is designed for home multimedia
applications. It operates at a physical rate of 200 Mbps, and has a "net
throughput after taxes of more than 100 Mbps. It will reach the most
remote plug in a big American house and still have 20 to 25 Mbps after
tax."
The chip is specifically designed for video and voice
networking. It has low latency (about 10 milliseconds), low jitter (less
than 100 milliseconds), a low packet error rate, and includes a
priority-based QoS conforming with IEEE 802.1q. And it supports IP
multicasting, allowing a set top box to send a single IP video stream
simultaneously to multiple TVs.
also: JAPAN REPORTEDLY PLANS TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL
BPL BY 2006
According to unofficial reports, the Japanese Ministry
of Internal Affairs and Communications aims to kick off discussions toward
deregulating the use of indoor power lines for fast Internet
communications as early as 2006. The ministry plans to set up early next
year a study group to compile a final report as early as the end of 2005
to be used as a recommendation for the Radio Regulatory Council, to relax
the ban on the commercial deployment of BPL. Currently, testing of BPL is
permitted, and various tests have been underway for about a year. An
industry group including Mitsubishi and Tokyo Electric Power Company is
expected to report on the test results, demonstrating that signal
emissions from power lines are negligible. The ministry intends to consult
with users of ship and aircraft radio communications and deregulate the
use of indoor wiring for data communications. In Japan where fiber runs
close to many buildings and neighborhoods, the primary application for BPL
initially would be in-building access and home networking, as well as home
security and remote control of appliances such as air conditioners. For
more information on this developing story, contact the UPLC.
and remember: Ambient Completes First Project
in New York City Tuesday October 26, 10:25 am ET First to
Commercially Deploy Second Generation Chipset Technology in North America
MADRID, SPAIN and NEWTON, MA--(MARKET WIRE)--Oct 26, 2004 --
Ambient Corporation (OTC BB:ABTG.OB - News), a leader in Power Line
Communications (PLC) and a featured exhibitor at the IQPC International
Powerline Communications Conference in Madrid announced today the
successful completion of its joint project with Consolidated Edison
(NYSE:ED - News) in the installation of a communications system in Con
Edison's new First Avenue Steam Tunnel in Manhattan. Kevin Burke,
President of Con Edison, said, "We are pleased with the results of the
project and its cost effectiveness. This state-of-the-art monitoring and
communications system will serve us well."
Ambient, the first US
company to incorporate the latest chipset from DS2 into its system,
utilized DS2's second generation PLC technology, capable of running at
speeds up to 200 Mbps, to build a multi-purpose communications network in
an industrial environment. The network is utilized in Con Edison's new
tunnel to monitor environmental conditions, the state of the steam main,
and to provide telephony service in the tunnel utilizing the voice over IP
(VoIP) technology provided by the DS2 chipset. This single network is a
cost-effective solution that provides a variety of services that would
traditionally have required multiple technologies and wiring
systems.
Con Edison's steam system is unique to Manhattan. It
serves about 1,800 customers from 105 miles of steam mains, stretching
from Lower Manhattan to 96th Street.
Ram Rao, Chief Network
Architect at Ambient, stated, "After years of successful demonstrations,
Ambient is moving to a new level with near term plans to begin
aggressively marketing its proven technology and equipment. The success of
this project is another key step in Ambient's path to being the industry
leader in PLC system design and installation."
An
Australian power company is testing a very fast broadband service that
uses household powerlines.
The new 200Mbps technology called
Broadband over Powerlines (BPL) has been tested successfully by Energy
Australia in Newcastle. Initial feedback has been overwhelmingly positive
following the three-month trial, which finished last month.
An
Energy Australia spokesperson said the trial was successful, but cautioned
that it was still long way before anything would be commercialized, if at
all.
However, telco industry analyst Paul Budde, CEO of
Budde.com, was optimistic. Budde had been invited by the utility to see
the Newcastle trial.
He said several large
apartment/commercial buildings in a city block in Newcastle East had been
BPL-enabled with the 200Mbps equipment, with ISP services provided by
Ipera.
In a research note on the topic Budde said Ipera runs a
fibre optic ring in Newcastle, while Energy Australia uses this network
and "takes over with BPL where those fibre cables end in substations
around the city".
"The general plan is to drive fibre optic as
deeply as possible into the network and use BPL as a 'first mile'
technology to connect to the users. Once in the building any power point
can be used to connect the BPL modem."
Budde told PC World
there were several reasons that could contribute to the service's launch.
First of all, the BPL technology, known as DS2, "works".
Secondly, it is a viable alternative to existing broadband delivery, and
could bring prices down.
And most importantly, the utilities
have made a commitment to support it: "Utilities are slow moving animals,
so if they go public [about their BPL plans], they are serious."
Sumitomo
Electric Industries, Ltd. and Sumitomo Corporation started the shipment of
the world first 200Mbps power line communications (PLC) modems to Russian
PLC business unit, Electro-Com in September 2004.
PLC promises
high-speed data transmission with higher data rate than ADSL without
adding new wiring, and it enables broadband services like Internet and
VoIP easily through existing power lines.
As there remain technical
problems on distance and quality of telephone lines, broadband Internet
service has not been expanded in Russia. Electro-Com prospects the
possibility of PLC in Russia for broadband internet service, and plans
Internet and VoIP services to the area of 100,000 households in Moscow and
other four cities in the next year.
Sumitomo Electric Industries,
who is selling 45Mbps PLC modems in Spain in collaboration with Itochu
Corporation, developed the 200Mbps PLC modems first in the world to
achieve higher performance at lower cost. The company tested the modems in
the field in Russia and other countries, confirmed satisfactory
performance in both hardware and software, and received the order from
Russia.
The 200Mbps PLC modems shipped to Russia promise high-speed
communication services (Internet and VoIP services) over access networks.
They consist of a head end, which receives high-speed communication
signals, a repeater, which amplifies the signals, and customer premise
equipment (CPE) that is installed at the subscriber house. The modems
employ the orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) modulation
scheme, and achieve low-noise communications by superimposing many
sub-carriers. PLC chips by DS2, a Spanish chip vendor, are adopted in the
modems.
In the domestic Japanese market, Sumitomo Electric
Industries is focusing on use of PLC technology in residential
applications, including home networking in housing complexes and houses,
in collaboration with Tokyo Electric Power Company.
Commercial
deployment of PLC has been accelerated in Europe and USA. In Korea,
regulations on PLC will be eased in this month to promote PLC deployment.
Only experiments are allowed in Japan due to concerns that the PLC
radiation could cause interference to other radio receivers. Deregulation
of PLC services in Japan is expected after the influence of PLC on radio
receivers is evaluated.
ARRL CEO distorting facts on BPL progress according
to AMBIENT CEO and COSOLIDATED EDISON spokeperson interview
!!!
ARRL press release: http://www.eham.net/articles/9830 ...Major ISP Tells FCC
BPL Not a 'Commercially Viable Alternative' to Cable, DSL:
Folks,
ED/ABTG/ELNK BPL project in New York is still going on... BROADBAND OVER
POWER OUTLETS is alive and kicking !!!!!! RE: http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/041216/077905.html
FYI:
AMBIENT CEO and CON-EDISON`s Cris Olert interview direct links: *JUST
REMOVE SPACES WHEN COPYING& PASTING*
NTIA, FCC Spectrum
Leaders Meet to Coordinate Efforts FCC Chairman Michael Powell and
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Michael
Gallagher met to plan and coordinate the efforts of the FCC and the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration on spectrum
policy issues. The FCC oversees the use of non-government spectrum and
NTIA handles government spectrum.
Powell said, "I am pleased
that the FCC and NTIA teams are continuing to work closely on these
challenging issues that are important to the continued development of new
and enhanced spectrum-based services for businesses, consumers and the
military and other federal users." He said both agencies are making
progress on the introduction of new technologies and the identification of
spectrum for those technologies.
Gallagher said the NTIA and
FCC have implemented policies that support advanced wireless services,
next generation networks, ultrawideband, and most recently, broadband over
power lines.
"I am proud to say that we have made more
spectrum - both licensed and unlicensed - available for new purposes than
ever before, while continuing to protect critical government systems from
harmful interference."
The world on a wire By John Dizard Published: November
1 2004 02:00 | Last updated: November 1 2004 02:00
William Berkman
doesn't look like a scary person. He's from a respected Pittsburgh family,
which did very well in the telecommunications business and which donates
serious money to Harvard and other nonprofits. He's soft spoken and talks
about partnerships and joint venture with other people in the
telecommunications business. He has a small but tasteful office on
mid-Madison Avenue.
And yet Current Communications Group, which
is controlled by his family's Liberty Associated Partners, is beginning to
seriously frighten the cable operators and telcos. Current has a strong
technological position and experience base in the nascent Broadband over
Power Lines (BPL) industry, which looks like it will be the low cost
provider of high quality bandwidth to the home and office. BPL, for those
who have just joined us, is the technology that makes possible the
delivery of high speed, two-way broadband over home and office electric
outlets.
A couple of Halloweens from now, Berkman could be Freddy
Krueger to the Time Warners or Cablevisions of the world.
Of
course, from the point of view of, say, Manhattan residents, that can't
happen soon enough to Time Warner. We have no problem at all with new low
cost, reliable providers of broadband data, phone and video services. The
Feds, too, like the idea of "disruptive technologies", as FCC Chairman
Michael Powell fondly calls developments such as BPL. In the endless
seminars the über-bureaucrats attend, it is continually pointed out that
our Korean and Japanese competitors now have near-universal broadband to
the home at a rate of $10 a month for 10 megabits of data capacity.
Compare that to, say, $30 or $40 that's charged here for a sputtering
megabit or less. Not good.
Broadband over powerline technology moves from
trials to deployments
PROVIDENCE, R.I., Oct. 29, 2004 -- The
delivery of broadband access has been marked in recent years by increasing
competition between cable-television operators and local telephone
companies. This market shows signs of becoming even more competitive with
new technology and new groups of suppliers emerging. One example is
broadband over power line (BPL) technology, which uses the electric power
utility's distribution lines to deliver data services as well as ac power.
The idea of BPL technology is not new, but technological advances
in recent years have improved the ability of BPL to compete as an
alternative to DSL and cable-modems. These advances not only bring a new
technology to market, but they also bring a group of new "players" to the
broadband market - electrical power companies and municipal utility
authorities as well as possible joint-ventures or partnerships with these
entities.
Large, well-funded utilities and other companies are now
committed to developing BPL capabilities. In a new report, Developments in
Broadband over Power Lines, the Shpingler Group assesses the market
potential of broadband over power lines (BPL). The report forecasts a ramp
up to a $2.5 billion worldwide market for equipment in the next five
years, with a long-term outlook of serving more than 14 million customers
in the U.S. within ten years.
Since 2002, BPL has progressed from
a handful of trials to nearly 100 trials and early-stage commercial
deployments in North America. Some of these deployments involve
commitments to serve thousands of users.
BPL offers a competitive
mix of deployment costs, service capabilities, and operational benefits
compared with fiber, DSL, and other media being used or developed for
broadband access. It also is well suited for a large number of services,
including smart-home services, energy management, and other utility
applications, as well as high-speed Internet access. BPL also offers
flexibility for being combined with fiberoptic feeder systems or wireless
technology to offer hybrid solutions.
tech
geek | POSTED: 10.30.04 @05:49 | I rated this blog: [5]
Press Release Source: Ambient Corporation
Ambient Completes First Project in New York City Tuesday
October 26, 10:25 am ET First to Commercially Deploy Second Generation
Chipset Technology in North America
MADRID, SPAIN and NEWTON,
MA--(MARKET WIRE)--Oct 26, 2004 -- Ambient Corporation (OTC BB:ABTG.OB -
News), a leader in Power Line Communications (PLC) and a featured
exhibitor at the IQPC International Powerline Communications Conference in
Madrid announced today the successful completion of its joint project with
Consolidated Edison (NYSE:ED - News) in the installation of a
communications system in Con Edison's new First Avenue Steam Tunnel in
Manhattan.
Kevin Burke, President of Con Edison, said, "We are
pleased with the results of the project and its cost effectiveness. This
state-of-the-art monitoring and communications system will serve us
well."
Ambient, the first US company to incorporate the latest
chipset from DS2 into its system, utilized DS2's second generation PLC
technology, capable of running at speeds up to 200 Mbps, to build a
multi-purpose communications network in an industrial environment. The
network is utilized in Con Edison's new tunnel to monitor environmental
conditions, the state of the steam main, and to provide telephony service
in the tunnel utilizing the voice over IP (VoIP) technology provided by
the DS2 chipset. This single network is a cost-effective solution that
provides a variety of services that would traditionally have required
multiple technologies and wiring systems.
Con Edison's steam system
is unique to Manhattan. It serves about 1,800 customers from 105 miles of
steam mains, stretching from Lower Manhattan to 96th Street.
Ram
Rao, Chief Network Architect at Ambient, stated, "After years of
successful demonstrations, Ambient is moving to a new level with near term
plans to begin aggressively marketing its proven technology and equipment.
The success of this project is another key step in Ambient's path to being
the industry leader in PLC system design and installation."
Wiring Power Lines for Broadband Access By IAN
URBINA
Published: October 21, 2004
Some Manhattan
residents may soon be able to get high-speed Internet access from everyday
electrical sockets.
The Federal Communications Commission
approved new rules last week allowing increased use of the power line
technology. Consolidated Edison plans to begin testing the technology in a
high-rise apartment building on the Upper West Side in the next several
months. The utility decided to expand its use of the technology after a
successful pilot program in Westchester County that began in July 2002 and
cost $480,000, Con Ed officials said. While the technology is several
years from being ready for widespread use, experts and regulators say it
has potential.
For federal regulators, the technology is a way to
expand high-speed Internet access to anywhere with electricity and to
increase competition among Internet providers by offering an alternative
to D.S.L. and cable. For Con Ed, the technology - called broadband over
power lines, or B.P.L. - is a way to better monitor its electrical grid.
Con Ed joined with EarthLink, an Internet provider, and Ambient, a
communications technology developer, to test the technology two years ago
by installing it in a substation in Briarcliff Manor, in central
Westchester County. It has supplied Internet service for two years to two
Con Ed employees living within a mile of the substation and to the
Ossining Police Department.
"Our aim is definitely not to become an
Internet service provider," said Chris Olert, a Con Ed spokesman. "The
technology offers a chance for a partnership where Internet providers and
utilities can both benefit."
George Jee, the utility's director of
resource planning and project manager for power line communications, said
that as power lines are equipped to carry not just electricity but also
data, Con Ed may be able to read meters remotely, to pinpoint the
locations of cable problems, and to catch power surges and cascading
blackouts as they approach. The technology could also potentially help in
energy conservation and pollution reduction by enabling the utility to
inch up a building's thermostat remotely during times of peak demand, he
added.
EarthLink, Con Ed to pilot BPL in Manhattan by
Wendy Blake October 15, 2004
EarthLink will begin providing
Internet service over Con Ed's power lines in Manhattan in the next
several months, following an FCC vote last week to set new ground rules
for commercial deployment of the service.
Con Ed, EarthLink and
technology services company Ambient Corp. are signing agreements with
apartment building owners to pilot the service. Con Ed also plans to use
broadband over power lines, or BPL, to run diagnostic tests on its system
and manage residential power load. Ultimately, the company hopes to let
consumers regulate their electricity usage--control their air
conditioners, for instance--via the Internet.
Robert Pepper is the FCC's chief of policy
development
FCC watch on future technology
.... " Is
broadband over power lines going to hit regulatory walls from state and
local officials?
I don't know, but I have seen a number of the
broadband over power line experiments, and the technology appears to work.
There are obviously people who are concerned about interference.
What people have to understand is that there is already radio
interference that comes from existing power lines. The broadband over
power line technologies
that I have seen actually limit the
unwanted emissions from
the power line. If there is interference
of particular channels, they can be filtered out. Our Office of
Engineering and Technology is working to make sure that broadband over
power line does not create unacceptable radio interference issues.
I've talked to some state regulators who are very bullish on this,
because they see it as a way to reduce the cost of operation, begin to cap
cost increases and begin to manage the need for new electric generation
plans to meet spikes in demand. When we were in California in July, we
took a look at the trial that AT&T and PG&E are running. Some of
the PG&E people were talking about possibly doing real-time pricing
down to neighborhoods if they have broadband over power line...If your
dishwasher had an IP address and you could set it so that when the price
of electricity drops--if they have a sale--it drops by 60 percent or 80
percent. That's when you run your dishwasher. Maybe that happens at 3:30
in the morning. "
FROM MARK CUBAN: "Remember when all music was on
AM, and FM was a novelty without a business? Networks that can't or won't
go HD will find themselves on the "AM dial" of satellite and cable
companies."
ARRL Asks FCC to Shut Down New York BPL Field Trial
NEWINGTON, CT, Oct 11, 2004--As the FCC is poised to act this week on
BPL rules, the ARRL has asked the Commission to shut down a BPL field
trial system in Briarcliff Manor, New York, that has been the subject of
interference complaints since last March. The ARRL says the system, being
operated by Ambient Corporation under an FCC Experimental license,
continues to cause harmful interference to Amateur Radio stations, and the
FCC must require it to cease operation immediately.
"The operator
of the system has attempted what it referred to as 'adjustments' in this
system in order to reduce the severe interference potential to licensed
radio services such as the Amateur Service," said ARRL General Counsel
Chris Imlay, W3KD. "These 'adjustments' have come to be inaccurately
referred to as 'notching' of certain bands, and as a solution to
interference to Amateur Service stations, they are incomplete and
inadequate."
New brand of broadband (BPL) may enter
PENNSYLVANIA.
New brand of broadband may enter Pa.
Md. co.
in talks with utility firms Maria Guzzo
DOWNTOWN -- A
Maryland-based technology company, whose investors have ties to
Pittsburgh, soon may be teaching Western Pennsylvanians a new way to surf
the Web.
Germantown, Md.-based Current Communications Group LLC
confirmed it is in talks with area electric utility firms to launch a
service here that would enable businesses and homeowners to get online
simply by plugging their computers into electrical outlets.
Current Communications CFO Kevin Kushman said his firm has spoken
with both Greensburg-based Allegheny Energy Inc. and Downtown-based
Duquesne Light Co. about launching its BPL -- broadband over power lines
-- service in the region.
BPL gives customers high-speed "always
on" access to the Internet from traditional power outlets, which can take
on dual roles of providing electricity and broadband access. Mr. Kushman
said there is no need to add additional wiring, as there is when
installing an Internet modem from cable television firms. And, he said the
speed and price of the service rivals both cable Internet and DSL access,
which is provided by the phone company.
Mr. Kushman said talks
with Duquesne Light are progressing faster than discussions with Allegheny
Power.
"Talks with Duquesne started in March or April and we have
had follow-up discussions, but there's nothing specific to announce," Mr.
Kushman said, noting that Current generally signs nondisclosure agreements
with utilities.
He said discussions with Duquesne Light and other
providers ebb and flow based on the utilities' busy periods. He said now
that the summer weather, when electric utilities manage their peak loads,
has passed, he expects talks to resume.
Mr. Kushman said
Duquesne's service area, which includes the city of Pittsburgh, is
advantageous to a BPL rollout.
"We like the fact that they're a
relatively compact system where customer density is good," Mr. Kushman
said. "They're appealing from that perspective."
Date posted: 2004-10-08 FCC Chairman to Attend
BPL Demo in Manassas, Va. Two chief regulators will attend a
demonstration of Broadband over Power Lines (BPL) technology, Tuesday,
Oct. 12, at 9:30 a.m.
FCC Chairman Michael Powell and Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Pat Wood, III will view first-hand
the BPL services offered by the City of Manassas, Va.
Manassas is
one the first cities to offer high-speed Internet service over power
lines.
There is concern in the broadcast community about
interference from BPL, and the difficulties of getting it mitigated.
Industry experts have said that while the law enjoins BPL providers from
interfering with TV signals, enforcement has been lacking.
The
event will begin at 9:30 a.m. at the Manassas Public Works building, 8500
Public Works Drive, Manassas, Va., and last approximately 90 minutes. The
two chairmen will see the capabilities of BPL for Internet service, VoIP
and utility and public works functions.
Directions to the
Manassas Public Works Building can be obtained by contacting Meribeth
McCarrick at the FCC at 202-418-0654 or Meribeth.Mccarrick@fcc.gov
FCC takes up broadband over power lines EE
Times Oct 08, 2004
WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications
Commission said it will consider requirements for providing broadband
services over power lines.
The five-member FCC is scheduled to
take up the issue at its Oct. 14 meeting.
The FCC's Office of
Engineering and Technology is expected to present commissioners with a
report on amending FCC rules covering unlicensed RF devices to allow for
provision of broadband over power lines. Among other things, regulators
must determine what, if any, interference problems would be caused by
providing broadband services over utility lines.
The FCC's review
of the issue that began in April 2003 focused on two types of broadband
delivery: "access," in which medium voltage (1,000- to 40,000-volt) power
lines deliver Internet and broadband services to homes and offices; and
"in-house," in which existing utility wiring links computers and printers
on LANs.
FCC Chairman Michael Powell is scheduled to inspect an
power-line demonstration project in Manassas, Va., next week.
re: http://www.uplc.org/ ........Sept. 22, 2004 STATES:
MICHIGAN, NEW JERSEY, AND NEW YORK COMMISSIONERS SUPPORT BPL
The
UPLC hosted a roundtable discussion at its annual conference on utility
regulatory issues for BPL, during which several state commissioners
expressed strong support for BPL deployment. Commissioner Connie Hughes
(NJ) stated that she supported a regulatory light touch for BPL, and asked
for the UPLC to educate the NARUC BPL Task Force about BPL.
Her
comments were echoed by Thomas Dunleavy (NY) who also is a member of the
BPL Task Force. He said that BPL was nascent and that regulators should
approach BPL under a new paradigm that departs from “anachronistic” models
based on the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and that encourages
investment by providing regulatory certainty.
Commissioner Robert
Nelson (MI) stated that some regulation to prevent cross subsidies may be
necessary, and expressed his concern about the pending Supreme Court case
on the regulatory classification of cable modem services. His view was
that even if the Supreme Court holds that cable modem is a
telecommunications service in that case, the FCC could still forbear from
regulating cable modem and other broadband services, such as BPL.
Commissioner Nelson, who is a member of the NARUC Telecom Committee,
helped form the BPL Task Force. He announced that NARUC BPL Task Force
would be meeting next month and invited the UPLC to participate during
that meeting.
Panelists from EEI, APPA, and NRECA also voiced
their concerns about state regulations. Dick Geltman, General Counsel for
APPA, urged state regulators to eliminate laws that would restrict or
prohibit municipal utilities from offering BPL or other broadband
services. Mike McGrath from EEI was excited about BPL and expressed
concerns about mandatory access and cost allocation issues for affiliate
transactions review. Tracy Steiner, General Council for NRECA, also was
excited about BPL but stated frankly that it was “tough” to make the
business case work for co- ops that are in sparsely populated areas. She
encouraged regulators from making it tougher for co-ops to deploy -
particularly on issues such as rates, facility siting and territorial
matters. In response, Commissioner Dunleavy said, “it’s in our own
self-interest” to realize the benefits for consumers from BPL, and he
encouraged utilities in the audience to deploy rather than to focus on
regulatory issues.
North Carolina Utility Decommissions BPL Field
Trial
NEWINGTON, CT, Oct 4, 2004--Progress Energy Corporation (PEC)
has shut down its BPL field trial in the Raleigh, North Carolina, area and
removed all system hardware. The utility's action last week came just as
local amateur Tom Brown, N4TAB, had filed a Response and Further Complaint
about the system with the FCC. Despite the system's shutdown--which he'd
called for in his filing--Brown says he stands by his challenge to the
FCC's determination last July that the utility's BPL system complied with
Part 15 rules and that ham band notching was "effective."
"My
suggestion that the FCC somehow measured what I measured and saw what I
saw and reported something else still stands," he said. Brown said he'd
send a letter to that effect to Bruce Franca of the FCC's Office of
Engineering and Technology, and the other recipients of his recent
complaint. Franca's July report had characterized the 24 dB average notch
depths as "sufficient to eliminate any signals that would be deemed
capable of causing harmful interference, including interference to amateur
operations."
Progress Energy's approach to mitigating interference
on amateur frequencies by avoiding--or notching--ham bands was, Brown
said, "a failed attempt, regardless of what kind of face they want to put
on it."
Brown maintained that the FCC's pronouncing a lack of
harmful interference based upon a power level 24 dB below Part 15 emission
limits "is immaterial." Part 15 is very clear, he said, that if unlicensed
devices operating under that section of FCC rules cause harmful
interference, it has to cease operation.
"They [the FCC] measured
it as a point source--it doesn't behave as a point source," Brown said of
the BPL signals. "It behaves as a line source or a radiated source, and if
you measure it and listen to it under those circumstances, you find
exactly what I found--that you can drive a mile away from it and hear the
same power level that you heard right at the injector." In its filings,
the ARRL also has asserted that BPL is a line source, not a point source,
radiator.
Is
broadband over power lines going to hit regulatory walls from state and
local officials?
I don't know, but I have seen a number of the
broadband over power line experiments, and the technology appears to work.
There are obviously people who are concerned about interference. What
people have to understand is that there is already radio interference that
comes from existing power lines. The broadband over power line
technologies that I have seen actually limit the unwanted emissions from
the power line. If there is interference of particular channels, they can
be filtered out. Our Office of Engineering and Technology is working to
make sure that broadband over power line does not create unacceptable
radio interference issues.
I've talked to some state regulators who
are very bullish on this, because they see it as a way to reduce the cost
of operation, begin to cap cost increases and begin to manage the need for
new electric generation plans to meet spikes in demand. When we were in
California in July, we took a look at the trial that AT&T and PG&E
are running. Some of the PG&E people were talking about possibly doing
real-time pricing down to neighborhoods if they have broadband over power
line...If your dishwasher had an IP address and you could set it so that
when the price of electricity drops--if they have a sale--it drops by 60
percent or 80 percent. That's when you run your dishwasher. Maybe that
happens at 3:30 in the morning.
FCC: BPL RULES DUE OUT NEXT MONTH AND WILL LIKELY
FOLLOW PROPOSALS
During his keynote speech last week at Broadband
PowerLine 2004: the United Power Line Council’s Annual Conference, Bruce
Franca, Deputy Chief of the FCC’s Office of Engineering & Technology
(OET), said “I don’t think there will be big surprises” when the final
rules for BPL are adopted next month. While seeking to protect licensees
from potential interference, Franca commented that, “we’re trying to
foster this technology.” He added that “we’ve done a fair amount of
measurement and field work” at sites in Raleigh, NC and Briarcliffe Manor,
NY and have concluded that the potential for interference is “fairly
limited.” Franca confirmed that the OET was still writing the draft rules
at the time of his keynote, but that the draft was now finished and has
been sent to the Commissioners’ offices for circulation.
Tom
Sullivan, Chief of the NTIA Spectrum Engineering Branch, echoed that NTIA
is “fully behind BPL” and is “not at all fearful of local interference.”
NTIA continues to study the global impact of BPL while preliminarily
concluding that local interference is not a near term problem. Sullivan
said he expected that the FCC rules would include some of the
recommendations proposed by NTIA in its comments, including special
protection for certain “bands of exclusion”, “exclusion zones” and
“coordination areas.”
Sullivan went on to explain that
coordination requirements would only apply within an 80 kilometer radius
of a few radar and radio astronomy facilities, and could be as simple as
making a phone call before deploying. Similarly, the exclusion zones/bands
would also be limited to discrete facilities using aeronautical
frequencies near 21 MHz, and would exempt BPL underground installations.
Moreover, he stated that the BPL notification database would be far
simpler than originally suggested by NTIA, and would likely be based on
zip codes. Finally, he said that NTIA and FCC were still discussing NTIA’s
recommendation to impose equipment certification requirements on BPL
operators. In conclusion, Sullivan said that the BPL NPRM had extended
complete trust to the BPL industry to deal with interference. While NTIA
is still concerned, clearly it has moved away from its “trust but verify”
stance in its comments.
FCC Poised to Act on BPL Report and Order in
Mid-October FCC Poised to Act on BPL Report and Order in Mid-October
The FCC will consider a draft R&O on BPL at its October 14
meeting. (L-R) Commissioners Kevin Martin, Kathleen Abernathy, Chairman
Michael Powell, Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein. [FCC
photo]
NEWINGTON, CT, Sep 24, 2004--The FCC Office of
Engineering and Technology (OET) will present a broadband over power line
(BPL) Report and Order to the full Commission when it meets October 14,
the ARRL has learned. More than 6100 comments have been filed on the topic
since the FCC released its initial Notice of Inquiry in the proceeding, ET
Docket 03-104, in April 2003 and a subsequent Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (NPRM), ET Docket 04-37, in February of this year. The ARRL so far
on this round has taken its concerns regarding Amateur Radio and BPL to
three of the Commission's five members. In a meeting this week with FCC
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein, an ARRL delegation again asserted that
the FCC is pushing the proceeding to a predetermined conclusion with
little regard for technical issues.
Alex Pardo of Cinergy..............This guy is a
moron. He does not have a clue about electricity or radio waves.
Electrical power distribution in the USA is 60 HZ Radio waves are about
100,000 Hz and above. BPL operates on "Radio" frequencies therefore BPL
does interfere with "Radio" signals. BPL is like a one way street with a
wrong way driver on it and then trying to claim that the wrong way driver
is not interfering with traffic,
........................nonsense.
The 2004 European Utility Telecom Conference (EUTC
2004) represents the largest gathering of telecommunications and
technology executives from Europe's electric, gas and water utilities, and
their technology partners who are focused on exploring the latest
telecommunications and data networking business solutions and business
opportunities.
The event will feature informative and provocative
presentations on wireless networking, shared system solutions, European
Commission regulatory drivers, security and reliability issues, and new
telecom business opportunities for utilities.
EUTC 2004 will offer
perspectives on European utility telecom issues from regulators and
financial analysts, presentations on the latest technologies to help
utilities, and a variety of special networking opportunities and social
events.
Who Should Attend? EUTC 2004 is designed to attract
senior European executives from utilities, pipelines and other critical
infrastructure companies as well as their technology and financial
partners who have responsibilities for managing all internal telecom
networks as well as developing new telecom ventures. Government regulators
looking for innovative ways to promote economic development by encouraging
utility telecom ventures should also attend.
EUTC 2004 will be the
only place where European utility management can get a complete
perspective on all types of critical infrastructure telecom systems and
competitive telecom business opportunities - while learning from and
forging alliances with their peers across Europe.
Interested in
Sponsoring EUTC 2004? The 2004 European Utility Telecom Conference is
THE event for European utility and energy telecom professionals to get the
solutions they need to meet the challenges ahead.
Cinergy, Current Communications Begin Marketing BPL
to Municipal Utilities, Rural Electric Cooperatives Monday August 9,
10:00 am ET http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040809/95516_1.html
CINCINNATI--(BUSINESS
WIRE)--Aug. 9, 2004--ACcess Broadband LLC has been selected as the name
for the joint venture formed by Cinergy Broadband, LLC, an affiliate of
Cinergy Corp. (NYSE:CIN - News), and Current Communications Group, LLC to
market broadband over powerline (BPL) technology exclusively to municipal
utilities and rural electric cooperatives.
"ACcess Broadband will
provide municipal electric systems and rural electric cooperatives with a
proven end-to-end enterprise system that can meet the information
technology needs of their customers and their utility today and in the
future, while providing a valuable new source of revenue for the utility,"
said William J. Grealis, executive vice president of Cinergy.
In
addition, Michael J. Pristas, an industry veteran with 29 years of
experience in the energy information and power industries, has been hired
as senior vice president, business development for ACcess Broadband and
will manage its marketing and business development activities. Most
recently, Pristas was vice president, utility solutions business for the
National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC) in Herndon, Virginia.
His previous industry experience includes Power Measurement, Square D,
Marriott, Honeywell and Westinghouse.
"The name ACcess Broadband
was chosen because it exemplifies the availability of high speed access to
the Internet for the muni and co-op marketplace provided by Current's BPL
system. The 'AC' designation is an electric industry acronym that
references alternating current and the wires that serve as the carrier for
the BPL signal," explained Pristas.
The municipal and rural
electric market represents a potential in excess of 25 million customer
accounts for BPL. "ACcess Broadband's primary objective is to provide the
means to connect these utilities and their customers to the world," he
added. "ACcess Broadband initially will target those utilities with the
critical mass, account density and necessary communications infrastructure
to facilitate immediate deployment."
PROVIDENCE, Rhode
Island - A university study has found Taiwan and Singapore now lead the
United States and Canada in providing government services online.
The Brown University survey, in its fourth year, measures
the online performance of government in 198 countries. Professor Darrell
West and a team of researchers reviewed 1,935 government Web sites from
June through August.
The researchers ranked Taiwan, Singapore,
the United States, Canada and Monaco as the top five, followed by China
and Australia.
The study's authors say well-developed
government Web sites help users explore and learn about the country.
"Citizens love the convenience of 24-7 government. They like
being able to go to a Web site and download a report or check out a
database," West said. He added that more governments are offering
constituent services online.
The rankings were based on two
dozen criteria, including the availability of publications, databases,
disability access, privacy, security and the number of online services.
Last in the rankings was Tuvalu, a tiny island nation in the
Pacific, which has generated revenue by selling its coveted ".tv" Internet
domain. Located midway between Hawaii and Australia, the islands' exports
historically have been coconut oil and postage stamps.
"Each
time we go to their site, it seems to have been overtaken by a commercial
entity," West said.
Overall, the research team found 89
percent of Web sites have online publications and 62 percent have links to
databases. Just 14 percent show privacy policies, and 8 percent have
security policies.
The study found government Web sites
lagging on providing access for the disabled, with just 14 percent of
sites providing some form of disability access, such as assistance for the
vision or hearing-impaired. That percentage did not increase from the
previous year.
West said the relatively small percentage of
sites considered friendly to the disabled appears to be due to the fact
that "not all nations see this as a top priority."
He said the
solution is a public education campaign about the need to make online
government universally accessible.
NEWINGTON, CT, Aug
17, 2004--The ARRL has asked the FCC to immediately shut down a broadband
over power line (BPL) field trial in the Cottonwood, Arizona, area because
it's causing "severe interference" to Amateur Radio communication.
Electric Broadband LLC and utility APS have been operating the BPL
experiment at two Yavapai County sites since June under a Special
Temporary Authorization (STA) the FCC granted to Electric Broadband in
March. Michael Kinney, KU7W, filed the first Amateur Radio complaint in
June. It cited testing by the Verde Valley Amateur Radio Association
(VVARA) in the 1.8-30 MHz range showing that BPL interference makes
attempts at ham radio communication useless.
"The interference on
typical Amateur Radio equipment shows received undesired signal levels in
excess of 60 dB over S9 on the receiver's signal strength meter," ARRL
General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, told FCC officials on the League's
behalf. "The utility and Electric Broadband were contacted, and no
response was received." The ARRL asserted that both companies are aware
that the BPL field trial has been causing harmful interference and
"neither has taken any steps to either resolve it or terminate the test."
ARRL called on the FCC to instruct Electric Broadband and APS to
shut down the BPL trial immediately and not resume operation until it can
demonstrate that all interference issues have been resolved. It also
insisted that the FCC immediately revoke any STAs granted for the
Cottonwood or nearby operations, and that it institute forfeiture
proceedings against the two companies for knowingly causing harmful
interference.
Regulators promise 'light touch' on BPL By Grant
Gross IDG News Service, 09/14/04
Members of three state public
utilities promised a light regulatory touch on broadband over power line
service as electric companies begin to experiment with the alternative to
traditional high-speed Internet service.
Members of state public
utilities commissions need to be educated about BPL issues, Tom Dunleavy,
a member of the New York State Public Service Commission, told attendees
of the United Power Line Council's annual conference in Arlington, Va.,
Tuesday.
"Believe it or not, it is not our objective to impose any
unnecessary regulations on anyone," Dunleavy told the audience, made up
mostly of power company employees. "This is a nascent technology. We're
talking about a brand new paradigm on the telecommunications side."
Instead of heavy-handed regulation, state regulators want to
encourage the rollout of BPL as an alternative to other broadband
services, said Dunleavy and representatives of the Michigan and New Jersey
public service commissions. In June, President George Bush pushed BPL as a
way to help achieve his goal of universal broadband availability across
the U.S. by 2007, and Robert Nelson, a member of the Michigan Public
Service Commission noted that his state's policy is to encourage broadband
rollout as well.
Asked if state regulators should be encouraging
BPL rollouts, Mike McGrath, executive director of retail energy services
for Edison Electric Institute, said such action isn't needed. "Probably
the only real encouragement is an attractive business opportunity," he
said. "You can pretty expect folks to be interested in profitability,
interested in new business."
"Bird Said" Nonsense!!! This is "SMOKE and Mirrors"
If one wanted to find out if a complaint was filed with a Federal Agency,
why would Bird ask his State police instead of the Federal Communication
Commission. I don't beleive it and I doubt if anyone reading here does
either. Jason Bird is another "shill" for the Power Industry like tech
geek.
Fiber optics can provide 10gbps now and without interference.
BPL is plagued with problems.
By Donna Barker BCR Staff PRINCETON --
The city of Princeton says it knew what it was doing when it chose to
provide high speed Internet service through broadband over power
lines.
Jason Bird, superintendent of Princeton's Electric
Distribution Department, said Friday the city has done its research into
the broadband over power lines project.
During the last two
Princeton City Council meetings, members from the American Radio Relay
League have questioned the city's choice of BPL, saying the broadband
lines would cause too much interference to other radio frequencies,
including ambulance, law enforcement and aviation communication systems.
According to the objectors, BPL programs in four test sites have already
been closed.
Bird disagreed with those and other statements given
by the ARRL.
In a press release issued Friday morning, Bird said
the city has contacted the Illinois State Police, and their officials say
they are unaware of any complaint filed with the Federal Communication
Commission about BPL interference in Illinois. The state police have even
accepted an invitation to observe the BPL pilot project in Princeton, Bird
said.
Bird said he has also contacted BPL test site officials at
Manassas, Va., which according to some opponents to the project, had shut
down its BPL system due to interference problems. Bird said Manassas has
not shut down its system and has not had interference issues. Manassas has
actually hooked up several hundred customers to the BPL system, Bird
said.
Bird also questioned whether Manassas, which is about 20
miles from Dulles Airport in Washington, D.C., could have operated its BPL
system, if it had caused interference problems with the Dulles Airport
radio frequency system.
According to Bird, the North Carolina BPL
test site will not be shut down because of interference problems, but
because the city has been unable to identify a partner to serve as an
Internet Service Provider. The North Carolina project was tested for
interference by the Deputy Chief of the Federal Communication Commission
because of complaints issued by ham operators, Bird said. No interference
was detected, Bird said.
"The city of Princeton has done its
homework on this project," Bird said. "Documents from commissioners of the
FCC can be provided showing their support for this
technology."
...MORE
tech
geek | POSTED: 09.14.04 @22:30 | I rated this blog: [5]
Mr Chairman,
Utility meters have been read
on CATV since the early 1970's when Hughes Aircraft's cable TV
division,Theta Com, connected the homes in El Segundo, CA with a two way
CATV system. Current Cable Television operators can provide that meter
reading service without interference, unlike BPL.
Fiber optics
could also do it with current speeds of 10 gbps and almost unlimited
bandwidth, and again, no interference.
In this study they were talking only thousands $ in
BPL spending compared to $BILLIONS for fiber to the homes build-out
...please read this study in Philadelphia !!!
cot`n... Shpigler said the borough's Electric Department could
save more than $50,000 a year with BPL, including being able to read
customers' power usage without meter readers. The system could also handle
other utility chores, such as predicting peak demand, and determining the
location and cause of outages.
On the retail side, rather than
the borough becoming an Internet service provider in competition with the
private sector, it could realize $360,000 in revenues over a 10-year
period by leasing use of its power distribution system to a provider.
The system is now commercially available in four markets,
including Manassas, Va., Shpigler told the council.
With BPL,
a provider transmits digital information over medium- and low-voltage
power lines into customers' homes or places of business. Shpigler said one
benefit it provides is the ability to make every outlet in a home or
business a connection point for a modem.
The hybrid system
could also serve wireless customers, he said.
"BPL is
characterized as an unintended radiator," Shpigler said, addressing the
issue of possible interference with public service transmissions, ham
radio signals and other communications. If that radiation is found to
create interference with other users, Shpigler said the Federal
Communications Commission requires the entity operating the system to
remedy the problem.
"Some vendors have gotten better at being
able to manage that" by more efficiently moving the information over power
lines without boosting power.
In terms of economic
development, Shpigler said the impact of having another way for people to
access high-speed data could be as much as $8.9 million for Chambersburg
over the next decade in job creation, competitive pricing and higher
productivity.
Shpigler said a test of BPL capabilities would
require selecting a vendor and training line workers. He said it could
take up to 10 months. He estimated it would cost the borough about
$30,000, plus another $5,000 or more a month for a project manager during
the trial.
In this study they were talking only thousands $ in
BPL spending compared to $BILLIONS for fiber to the homes build-out
...please read this study in Philadelphia !!!
CHAMBERSBURG, Pa. - Broadband over power lines, or BPL, could
be worthwhile for Chambersburg, cutting some electric department costs
while producing income from high-speed Internet and other services,
according to the consultant who did the feasibility study for the borough.
Concerned about the effect of such a system on licensed users
of the airwaves, however, the Cumberland Valley Amateur Radio Club has
asked for the opportunity to address the council at its Sept. 27 meeting.
Over 10 years, BPL could supply Internet and other services to
about 4,000 homes and businesses in Chambersburg, according to David
Shpigler of the Shpigler Group, the Nyack, N.Y., firm commissioned to do
the $17,000 feasibility study. He presented his findings at Monday night's
council meeting.
Shpigler said the borough's Electric
Department could save more than $50,000 a year with BPL, including being
able to read customers' power usage without meter readers. The system
could also handle other utility chores, such as predicting peak demand,
and determining the location and cause of outages.
Bird said FCC chairman Mike Powell
recently said the future is bright for powerline
broadband.
Princeton Electric Department crews are getting ready to
install a fiber optic system as the inner core for Princeton's high speed
Internet telecommunications systems. The city will receive 66,000 feet of
fiber optic lines in the next few days. City crews will then be trained
and then install the 11 miles of fiber optic lines, a job Bird hopes to
begin by Sept. 7. Bird would like to see it completed by the end of
September.
The fiber optic system will provide the core base for
the city's high speed telecommunication system with a more extensive BPL
test program of 50 customers. Bird said he'd like to see that pilot
project begin by the end of the year. The BPL test program will last as
long as necessarily, probably run 30 to 120 days, he said. The BPL test
program will focus on businesses on both sides of Main Street, from Warren
Street to Central Avenue.
According to Bird, the city of Princeton
and its local Internet Service Provider, Connecting Point of Peru, have
not yet determined the monthly cost to customers for BPL service. Manassas
and Cinergy, another BPL project site, are charging its customers less
than $30 per month for high speed broadband. Bird said he expects
Princeton to remain in the same ball park as other BPL sites.
Bird
said he hopes BPL could be available city-wide by May or June.
By Donna Barker BCR
Staff PRINCETON -- The city of Princeton says it knew what it was doing
when it chose to provide high speed Internet service through broadband
over power lines.
Jason Bird, superintendent of Princeton's
Electric Distribution Department, said Friday the city has done its
research into the broadband over power lines project.
During the
last two Princeton City Council meetings, members from the American Radio
Relay League have questioned the city's choice of BPL, saying the
broadband lines would cause too much interference to other radio
frequencies, including ambulance, law enforcement and aviation
communication systems. According to the objectors, BPL programs in four
test sites have already been closed.
Bird disagreed with those and
other statements given by the ARRL.
In a press release issued
Friday morning, Bird said the city has contacted the Illinois State
Police, and their officials say they are unaware of any complaint filed
with the Federal Communication Commission about BPL interference in
Illinois. The state police have even accepted an invitation to observe the
BPL pilot project in Princeton, Bird said.
Bird said he has also
contacted BPL test site officials at Manassas, Va., which according to
some opponents to the project, had shut down its BPL system due to
interference problems. Bird said Manassas has not shut down its system and
has not had interference issues. Manassas has actually hooked up several
hundred customers to the BPL system, Bird said.
Bird also
questioned whether Manassas, which is about 20 miles from Dulles Airport
in Washington, D.C., could have operated its BPL system, if it had caused
interference problems with the Dulles Airport radio frequency
system.
According to Bird, the North Carolina BPL test site will
not be shut down because of interference problems, but because the city
has been unable to identify a partner to serve as an Internet Service
Provider. The North Carolina project was tested for interference by the
Deputy Chief of the Federal Communication Commission because of complaints
issued by ham operators, Bird said. No interference was detected, Bird
said.
"The city of Princeton has done its homework on this
project," Bird said. "Documents from commissioners of the FCC can be
provided showing their support for this
technology."
In my August 12 column, I discussed a new
technology for sending data at high speeds over long distances: BPL, or
broadband over power lines.
A couple of people wrote to me to point
out what has been a criticism of the technology -- namely, that it can
interfere with other radio signals, most notably ham radios.
Tom
Pinner wrote:
BPL sounds like a life savior to people out in the
boonies. A MAJOR drawback to the system is the interference to lawful
users of those frequencies. I am an amateur radio operator (aka Ham radio)
who has mobile and base units on frequencies that will be used by BPL.
Why does it interfere with our radios? Due to the fact it radiates
massive signals due to unshielded power cables that BPL sends signals
down. Unlike cable system whose wires are 'covered' with shielding, power
lines are 'bare antennas'. I actually brought this up to the BPL folks
I spoke with for the article. Ham radio operators (and, in fact, people
with garage door openers) were concerned that these signals would
interfere.
I was told that yes, this was a concern, but that the
technology in use -- being tested now -- does not cause that
interference.
This might be true. As I mentioned in the column, BPL
technology originally sent the signal to individual homes -- through the
transformer and breaker box. Because those things degraded the signal, it
had to be much stronger to get through.
The BPL tech I'm interested
in uses the long-range, medium-voltage lines. Because it doesn't require
quite as strong a signal, there may be no interference.
We can only
wait and see. That's why it's being tested.
The 2004 Annual Conference of the United Power Line Council
September 12-15, 2004 Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City Arlington, VA
Sunday 2:00-5:00 p.m. Registration 3:30-5:00 p.m.
Pre-Conference Tutorial: Power Line 101
Pre-Conference Tutorial:
Power Line 101 This pre-conference tutorial is targeted to conference
attendees who are new to Broadband over Power Line (BPL). It will explain
how BPL works and describe the state of the technology; report on
developments in the field; examine the prospects for BPL in a challenging
economic market; and identify and evaluate the regulatory challenges and
opportunities that exist.
Brett Kilbourne, Director of Regulatory
Services and Associate Counsel, UPLC and UTC Ed Drew, Vice
President-Sales, Current Technologies
My Chairman - BPL INTERFERES WITH RECEIVERS and
thus cannot be "NOTCHED" out.
Ford Peterson - Submitted On:
August 17, 2004 The assertion that the OFDM methods are effective at
notching "specific problematic areas" is a joke. BPL doesn't interfere
with transmitters, BPL interferes with receivers. Since the vast majority
of users of HF spectrum are people 'listening' to transmissions, how does
the system detect the frequencies in use by receivers? Only when someone
monitoring a frequency initiates a transmitted signal does the system
understand that there is 'someone in the neighborhood' attempting to use
the frequency. Mark David has followed in the footsteps of a thousand
other reporters who simply parrot Gerszberg's claims without grasping the
stark reality that interference is simply bad for business. Gerszberg's
OFDM 'band-aide' is NOT a practical solution to the elementary problem of
poorly shielded and wildly unbalanced transmission lines, which by the
way, become transmitting antennas
Published September 2, 2004, in
issue 0335 of the Hook
In reference to the August 19 letter posted
by Charles G. Battig entitled "Juicy broadband faces hurdles," there is a
major inaccuracy about Broadband over Powerline (BPL) that deserves to be
corrected.
"The city of Manassas, which had one of the earliest
BPL trials, has subsequently terminated the experiment because of
interference it caused to licensed radio services," Battig wrote.
I have spoken personally with John Hewa, assistant director in
Manassas, and Joe Marsilii, CEO of Main.net, and they have both assured me
that the program is increasing subscribers along with its BPL footprint in
Manassas and they have no intention whatsoever of stopping this now very
live roll-out.
With regard to interference, Allen Todd, the
director in Manassas, is a Ham user himself and has not seen any
interference issues that have raised any significant barriers regarding
this service.
On the contrary, if interference was a serious
issue, being merely 20 miles from Dulles airport in Washington, this
project would have certainly been shut down if any interference whatsoever
was fouling any part of the air transit system's radio communications
It seems that individuals could do well to research the facts
fully before submitting for publication any opinions or false statements.
(1) I chose VOIP because SBC's model is too
complicated. They would tell me one price, I'd "think" I understood it and
all of its implications -- then I'd get a bill for something entirely
different. Not to mention the amount of hijacking that goes on with
regards to alleged "businesses" tacking on charges that I never approved
-- (incidentally when SBC gets called about something like that, they
refer you to the "business" that did the unapproved charging...and
surprise, those "businesses" are unreachable).
(2) My VOIP (Vonage)
runs through the broadband cable that I am already paying taxes
for.
(3) VOIP has a lot of disadvantages over regular phone lines.
If the power goes out, so does VOIP. If the cable goes out, so does VOIP.
If the phone adapter goes out, so does VOIP. The quality is pretty good,
but not on the same level as a regular phone line with regards to noise
and disconnects. Many times I have to dial the same number twice because
it just doesn't connect the first time.
I would suggest leaving
VOIP alone. It's still very small and while it may be on your radar
screen, it is not on par with a regular phone line and thus, should not be
treated like one. If it was regulated like a regular phone line, it would
die an instant death. Who would pay for lesser quality at the same price?
This I suspect is exactly why the regular telecom companies are pushing to
have it regulated -- to regulate it out of the market and out of their
hair.
If you're not already using VOIP personally, I would also
encourage you to become a VOIP customer (Vonage is what I use) so you can
experience first-hand what I'm talking about.
Con Ed says new computer would provide warning if
another blackout hit
(08/13/04) THE BRONX - It's been one year
since the lights went out in the Bronx and across the tri-state area, and
still some wonder could it ever happen again.
Last year, trees
tangled with electric transmission lines in Ohio and triggered a series of
shortages that put 50 million people in the dark. According to Con Edison,
there are new computer systems in place to give officials advance warning
if there were a power surge coming from another region like what happened
on August 14. Con Ed officials say the system actually did what it was
supposed to do on that day but just simply became overloaded and shut off.
Power to the entire city was not restored until the next day.
Faults Still Plague Electric System As Peak
Summertime Use Nears"
The Wall Street Journal has a long overview
article on last year's blackout in the Northeast and the prospects for
more trouble this year. The article requires a paid subscription to access
it; here are some excerpts: "As the summer months approach, North
America's electricity system remains frail and many of the shortcomings
that contributed to a massive failure eight months ago have yet to be
fixed."
"Investigators and utility executives agree that the
electric system still is plagued by the kinds of weaknesses that left 50
million people in the U.S. and Canada without power Aug. 14. A major study
of the blackout cites lingering deficiencies, including poorly prepared
engineers, faulty equipment settings, voluntary reliability standards and
muddled oversight."
"'The transmission system has been leaned on
and leaned on and it's in fairly fragile shape now,' said Joseph Welch,
president of International Transmission Co., a Novi, Mich.,
electric-transmission company. Adds Kenneth Rose, senior fellow at
Michigan State University's Institute of Public Utilities: 'Ironing out
all the problems will be fairly difficult.'"
IS THIS THE TYPE OF
SYSTEM THAT WE WANT TO BASE OUR INTERNET ON????
"The city of Princeton has done
its homework on this project," Bird said. "Documents from commissioners of
the FCC can be provided showing their support for this
technology."
Bird said FCC chairman Mike Powell recently said the
future is bright for powerline broadband.
Princeton Electric
Department crews are getting ready to install a fiber optic system as the
inner core for Princeton's high speed Internet telecommunications systems.
The city will receive 66,000 feet of fiber optic lines in the next few
days. City crews will then be trained and then install the 11 miles of
fiber optic lines, a job Bird hopes to begin by Sept. 7. Bird would like
to see it completed by the end of September.
The fiber
optic system will provide the core base for the city's high speed
telecommunication system with a more extensive BPL test program of 50
customers. Bird said he'd like to see that pilot project begin by the end
of the year. The BPL test program will last as long as necessarily,
probably run 30 to 120 days, he said. The BPL test program will focus on
businesses on both sides of Main Street, from Warren Street to Central
Avenue.
According to Bird, the city of Princeton and its local
Internet Service Provider, Connecting Point of Peru, have not yet
determined the monthly cost to customers for BPL service. Manassas and
Cinergy, another BPL project site, are charging its customers less than
$30 per month for high speed broadband. Bird said he expects Princeton to
remain in the same ball park as other BPL sites.
Bird said he hopes
BPL could be available city-wide by May or June.
By Donna Barker BCR Staff PRINCETON --
The city of Princeton says it knew what it was doing when it chose to
provide high speed Internet service through broadband over power
lines.
Jason Bird, superintendent of Princeton's Electric
Distribution Department, said Friday the city has done its research into
the broadband over power lines project.
During the last two
Princeton City Council meetings, members from the American Radio Relay
League have questioned the city's choice of BPL, saying the broadband
lines would cause too much interference to other radio frequencies,
including ambulance, law enforcement and aviation communication systems.
According to the objectors, BPL programs in four test sites have already
been closed.
Bird disagreed with those and other statements given
by the ARRL.
In a press release issued Friday morning, Bird said
the city has contacted the Illinois State Police, and their officials say
they are unaware of any complaint filed with the Federal Communication
Commission about BPL interference in Illinois. The state police have even
accepted an invitation to observe the BPL pilot project in Princeton, Bird
said.
Bird said he has also contacted BPL test site officials at
Manassas, Va., which according to some opponents to the project, had shut
down its BPL system due to interference problems. Bird said Manassas has
not shut down its system and has not had interference issues. Manassas has
actually hooked up several hundred customers to the BPL system, Bird
said.
Bird also questioned whether Manassas, which is about 20
miles from Dulles Airport in Washington, D.C., could have operated its BPL
system, if it had caused interference problems with the Dulles Airport
radio frequency system.
According to Bird, the North Carolina BPL
test site will not be shut down because of interference problems, but
because the city has been unable to identify a partner to serve as an
Internet Service Provider. The North Carolina project was tested for
interference by the Deputy Chief of the Federal Communication Commission
because of complaints issued by ham operators, Bird said. No interference
was detected, Bird said.
Fiber To The Home (FTTH) has been offering 100mbs
"up and down" internet connections to consumers for over two years in
Japan. Why doesn't the USA? Lets not waste our efforts on BPL, a imperfect
technology just to put money in the pockets of Big Power Companies.
**See below**
Broad strokes from FTTH Mike Galbraith,
1-Apr-2004
Mayumi Kohda has been enjoying the benefits of the
100Mbps FTTH (Fibre To The Home) service at her home in central Tokyo for
over 2.5 years. Previously, she used ISDN and cable modem access at home.
“We chose FTTH because it offered much faster access and it’s
stable,†she says. “USEN had us installed within about one week of
signing the contact.â€
USEN Corp, which is also Japan’s
largest cable-based music broadcaster, launched Japan’s first commercial
FTTH service in March 2001.
Kohda is not alone. The number of
subscribers in Japan’s main cities to a FTTH service is climbing,
passing the one million milestone in February. This is expected to hit the
two million mark at the end of 2004. In 2003, the number of FTTH
subscribers rose 3.3 times to 894,259. New subscribers averaged nearly
73,000 a month in the second half of the year, compared with 42,000 in the
first half. “FTTH is regarded as the second wave of Japanese
broadband,†says Toshio Kondo, senior analyst of the Technology &
Communication Practice Group of the Boston Consulting Group K.K.
At the same time, ADSL, which has always been synonymous with
broadband deployment in Japan, has begun to show signs of decline, despite
continuous marketing by NTT and Yahoo! BB.
Following 2.7 times
growth in 2002, the ADSL market grew only 81% last year, and the average
monthly new subscriber numbers fell from 435,000 in the first six months
to 335,000 in the second half of the year. The silver lining was that ADSL
subscriber numbers reached their own milestone of 10 million last
December.
FTTH’s surge in popularity can be attributed to
Japan’s FTTH technology development over the past 20 years. The country
boasts a backbone Fibre to the Curb (FTTC) infrastructure, and a growing
group of service providers that can supply 100Mbps (download and upload)
FTTH to around 70% of Japan’s population within weeks, and at attractive
prices.
TOKYO — A unit of Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp said
Friday it will start conducting a demonstration of a new broadband
technology known as power line communication, which enables high-speed
Internet access via existing power lines instead of telephone or cable TV
lines.
The move by NTT Advanced Technology Corp is expected to
intensify competition between power companies and telecom carriers in
putting PLC into practical use. (Kyodo News)
In my August 12 column, I discussed a new
technology for sending data at high speeds over long distances: BPL, or
broadband over power lines.
A couple of people wrote to me to point
out what has been a criticism of the technology -- namely, that it can
interfere with other radio signals, most notably ham radios.
Tom
Pinner wrote:
BPL sounds like a life savior to people out in the
boonies. A MAJOR drawback to the system is the interference to lawful
users of those frequencies. I am an amateur radio operator (aka Ham radio)
who has mobile and base units on frequencies that will be used by BPL.
Why does it interfere with our radios? Due to the fact it radiates
massive signals due to unshielded power cables that BPL sends signals
down. Unlike cable system whose wires are 'covered' with shielding, power
lines are 'bare antennas'. I actually brought this up to the BPL folks
I spoke with for the article. Ham radio operators (and, in fact, people
with garage door openers) were concerned that these signals would
interfere.
I was told that yes, this was a concern, but that the
technology in use -- being tested now -- does not cause that
interference.
This might be true. As I mentioned in the column, BPL
technology originally sent the signal to individual homes -- through the
transformer and breaker box. Because those things degraded the signal, it
had to be much stronger to get through.
The BPL tech I'm interested
in uses the long-range, medium-voltage lines. Because it doesn't require
quite as strong a signal, there may be no interference.
We can only
wait and see. That's why it's being tested.
This scenario
brings the additional benefits of wireless connectivity to whole
neighborhoods, creating "hot cities," said Gerszberg, where people could
"pull out laptops and pick up a detection point, just like you would with
a cell phone." Thank the recent cost reductions in wireless modems for
making such a vision possible and for changing the strategy for how BPL
can be implemented, Gerszberg said.
The other key
interference-busting advance, said Gerszberg, are chips with 500
orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) tones that can easily
identify and "notch out" specific problematic areas. The adaptive systems,
he said, can detect where hams are operating. By using OFDM and digital
filters, the systems then can shut down those tones and operate around
them. Also, AT&T is working with partners on coupling technology to
put signals on high-voltage line with much less leakage on the line
itself, he said.
Most BPL trials conducted to date in the U.S.,
said Gerszberg, have been based on soon-to-be outdated technology.
Gerszberg, who holds 70 patents on local-access technology, believes the
current focus on BPL will lead to fast development and payback because of
some strong market advantages. "Underground-wired neighborhoods can pose
nasty challenges," he said. "You have to dig up streets to put in new
cable. But BPL works underground very nicely. In fact, there's much less
interference underground because you're shielded by all that
dirt."
Also driving the advance of BPL, he said, are the electric
utilities' goals to have bidirectional communications for access and
equipment monitoring, advanced metering, pricing incentives, and load
management. Gerszberg said it's the first time in communication history
that there is technology out there that services two totally different
industries: communications and the power industry. "Check the history
books. I can't think of another example," he said.
Next-generation BPL, he said, will
transmit at the higher end (the 30- to 50-MHz range) of the BPL spectrum,
where previous-generation systems used spread-spectrum and caused more
interference problems with ham reception (in the HF spectrum). Another
piece of the solution, he said, is to use a "triple play" broadband
architecture combining fiber, power lines, and Wi-Fi. Interference is
minimized by using BPL to transmit over short distances, rather than
trying to send the signal miles and miles.
"We use fiber to bring
high speed into neighborhoods, then take it off a node and inject it into
the high-voltage line. Then we use a repeater every 500 feet on utility
poles, so we only need to have enough power to go 500 feet," he
explained.
In a rural setting, the signal might be transmitted
further between repeaters—but not more than a couple miles. "You have to
have some backbone connectivity. BPL modems can do 200 Mbits/s. You don't
want to go 200 miles with that," he said.
While Powell's comments
about "high speed to every power outlet" imply a combination of HomePlug
(in-house powerline distribution) with BPL (long-distance powerline data
transmission), Gerszberg sees the advantage of using Wi-Fi technology to
bring the signal the last 200 feet into the home. With repeaters on phone
poles at 500-foot intervals, "we won't have more than 250 feet to any
customer," he said.
I wonder if any of you readers will
march on Washington to protest FCC chairman Michael Powell's recent
statements promoting the future of broadband over powerline (BPL). I know
BPL is an incendiary issue with many of you, not because you're working on
developing the technology, but because you're ham radio operators aware of
potential BPL interference issues.
Powell made his pro-BPL comments
at a technology demonstration sponsored by PG&E and AT&T last
month in Menlo Park, Calif. "Powerline technology holds great promise to
bring high-speed Internet access to every power outlet in America," he
said. Such comments from high-level government officials don't resonate
well with many hams. The ARRL (American Radio Relay League) said the FCC
is "turning a blind eye" to the realities of interference issues.
Electronic Design received a torrent of e-mail from readers after
Lou Frenzel, our Communications/Networking Editor, wrote an op-ed saying
the ARRL was overreacting (see ED Online 7961). Many of you said that
BPL's significant interference problems extend beyond hams, as it also
jams local emergency transmissions.
Rather than jumping into the
heat of the FCC/ARRL debate, I'm more interested in how technological
innovation can extinguish this controversy. You readers have solved many
greater engineering challenges than this one!
At the BPL event
where Powell spoke, AT&T's Irwin Gerszberg, director of local network
access technology, cited developing technology that will enable BPL to
avoid interference with radio signals. I interviewed Gerszberg to get his
take on how these interference issues will be solved. He is optimistic
interference can be overcome by controlling the transmission power,
radiation pattern, and modulation techniques and by using new technology
to "get around interference problems" when they are detected.
re: Cinergy offers 'Net to
co-ops Broadband technology marketed to utilities By Mike
Boyer
Cinergy Corp. on Monday launched the second prong of its
broadband-over-power-lines initiative by signing on a new company to
market the technology to electric cooperatives.
The company,
ACcess Broadband LLC, launched with partner Current Communications Group
LLC, is among the first to market the emerging technology to other
utilities.
Last spring, Cinergy joined with Germantown, Md.-based
Current to become the first electric utility to offer high-speed Internet
services to customers via its power lines, essentially turning every
electric outlet into a Web connection. The technology avoids the need to
rewire or recable an area for high-speed Internet - an expensive
proposition in rural areas.
Cinergy and Current estimate that
municipal utilities and rural electric cooperatives represent about 25
million potential customers.
Cinergy has been marketing the
service in Hyde Park and Mount Lookout.
It won't disclose how many
customers it has. But a spokesman said the service is available to about
8,000 customers and is seeing about a 15 percent "take rate,'' which would
translate to about 1,200 customers for the service that starts at $29.95 a
month.
Cinergy spokesman Steve Brash said the partners plan to
expand the offering to Pleasant Ridge and Delhi Township in the near
future. Cinergy has said it hopes to have as many as 55,000 subscribers in
the first year in Cincinnati. It plans to expand to Northern Kentucky and
the rest of its Southwest Ohio service area in 2005.
Cinergy has
also invested $10 million in Current Communications as part of a new round
of venture funding of more than $70 million, along with Current's other
investors Liberty Associated Partners and EnerTech Capital LP. Cinergy's
investment is part of the utility's nonregulated business and isn't funded
by electric or gas rates.
The growing national interest in
broadband over power lines has triggered a flurry of concern among ham
radio operators, who fear widespread deployment could generate extensive
radio interference.
Cinergy and Current say the ham operators'
fears are unfounded. But the Ohio section of the American Radio Relay
League has set up a local committee headed by Kirk Swallow of Colerain
Township to monitor possible interference issues.
Pilot
project for next generation networks likely with DoT Our Bureau
Hyderabad , Aug. 7, 2004
THE Forum of the Asia Pacific
Telecommunity Standardisation Programme (ASTAP), an expert body addressing
telecommunications issues in the Asia-Pacific region, has taken up the
challenge of standardisation process ahead of the World Telecom
Standardisation Assembly (WTSA) 2004 meet by taking up pilot projects with
the first such project likely to be with the Department of
Telecommunications.
Areas such as Internet governance and
management, international Internet charging, tackling the vexatious issue
of Spam and standardisation of networks are among key areas the
standardisation programme plans to address.
Towards handling these
issues, the five-day Asia Pacific Telecommunity (APT) meet that ended here
, decided to take up pilot projects that would seek to integrate various
networks and, thereby, help in standardisation process.
First such
project is proposed to be taken up with the DoT, Government, and another
project on broadband through power lines is proposed in collaboration with
the Malaysian Government.
Addressing a press conference here, the
Executive Director of APT, Mr A. Narayan, Mr Peter Darling, an expert on
next generation networks, said that the meeting evolved a strategy that
outlines a set of principles for coordinating international
telecommunications union activity. The areas range from identification of
priority standardisation activities to operational level coordination.
Explaining the importance of this meeting, they said that the Asia
Pacific community accounts for about 58 per cent of the global population
and given the telecom penetration potential, it is projected to touch 40
per cent of the overall mobile users by 2008.
Given such a
backdrop, the issue relating to standardisation of voice, video and data
systems, and interoperability of various networks, the APT will take to
pilot projects before helping other countries to adopt this pattern.
The proposed pilot project with the DoT is to be taken up in the
area of next generation network on the Internet protocol where areas of
voice, data and video can be offered seamlessly.
With this in mind, the committee urged the Secretary of
Defense to take a number of actions to improve the utility of MARS. Such
actions included:
(1) increasing the visibility of MARS to senior
military and civil authority leadership;
(2) incorporating MARS
into appropriate contingency and emergency operations plans;
(3)
increasing the use of MARS as a cost-effective and viable alternative to
commercial telecommunications for the purposes of troop morale and
welfare;
(4) ensuring that all forward deployed units possess
communications equipment capable of operation on MARS frequencies;
and
(5) considering the applicability of using MARS as a low-cost
test bed for the evaluation of new communications technology and
equipment.
The committee notes that contemplated changes to
communications modes and frequency allocations between military and
commercial use may negatively impact the ability of mars to fulfill its
auxiliary communications role in the event of emergency.
The
committee also encouraged the Department to ensure that issues related to
MARS frequency allocations are addressed in connection with any review of
emergency response mission requirements.
The following statement on MARS was included in the
House Armed Services Committee report which accompanied the Defense bills
for 2000. Part I of II QUOTE Military Affiliate Radio System
The committee reiterates its prior support for the Military Affiliate
Radio System (MARS) and the civilian amateur radio operators who provide
the Department of Defense (DoD) with an auxiliary means of communications
in the event of a local, national, or international emergency. However,
the committee is concerned that the benefits of this volunteer
communications service are not fully appreciated or utilized by the
Department. In its December 31, 1996 report to the committee on the
MARS program, the Secretary of Defense emphasized, "there is no
requirement for a change in the MARS mission." although its main mission
is to provide emergency communications support, MARS has been a valuable
system for relaying morale and welfare messages between U.S. service
personnel stationed abroad and their families in the United States. This
system has operated at virtually no cost to the Department. As the number,
scope, and pace of contingency operations in which the United States
participates--including peacekeeping operations--continues to grow, the
committee encourages the Department to support, where feasible, the
deployment of a MARS capability to contingency theaters in order to
provide an auxiliary communications means for the use of service
personnel. In light of reports that DoD communications networks in Europe
are being augmented and improved in connection with the U.S. and NATO
military campaign against Yugoslavia, the committee believes that MARS can
play an important role in support of the military and humanitarian
operations being conducted in support of this mission. The committee
is aware of other existing communications arrangements--including the
Defense Switching Network, mobile subscriber equipment, commercial
carriers, and e-mail--which have been made available to U.S. troops for
morale traffic purposes during limited periods of time. However, the
committee notes that these alternate systems may not always be available
and may result in out-of-pocket costs to the users. The committee also
encourages the department to make greater efforts to inform U.S. military
personnel of the availability of the mars service.
Article from eham.net
!!!........... Military Affiliate Radio System
Another Federal
Slight to Hams from Daniel Wolff Website: http://www.qsl.net/aem1wf on August 7, 2004 View
comments about this article!
This message is a personal appeal to
you to take action against the closure of the European Area MARS Gateway
Station (AEM1USA).
Earlier this year the Commanding General,
General Bell, US Army Europe (USAREUR), officially requested the closure
of the Gateway, which links the Hams in MARS within the United States with
troops in Europe, the Middle East, West Asia and Africa. His request has
made its way up the chain to the Department of the Army who, if I
understand correctly, concurs with his request. The General's request is
now on the desk of the Department of Defense (DoD) representative for MARS
who works in the offices of the Secretary of Defense. This DoD
representative, Mr. Morris Hornik ( Morris.Hornik@osd.mil ), is now
being asked to concur or not concur with the closure of the European Area
MARS Gateway station
This is a critical pivot point in not
only the future of MARS in Europe, but the future of MARS anywhere outside
of the Continental USA (CONUS). He argued that with the advent of new
technologies (cell phones, satellite communications, email, and phones in
the field, etc.) that MARS is not needed anymore.
None of the
positive reasons for MARS provided by me or the Command MARS Director,
Europe to General Bell made it in the General's request to close the
Gateway. In fact, it appears the General had his mind up to close the
Gateway before ever requesting input from the Command MARS Director,
Europe.
The following statement on MARS was included in the
House Armed Services Committee report which accompanied the Defense bills
for 2000.
PROGRESS ENERGY IN NORTH CAROLINA QUITS BPL AND
TRANSFERS CUSTOMERS TO CONVENTIONAL BROADBAND INTERNET
PROVIDERS.
Aug 6, 2004 Progress ends its broadband trial Says
technical issues must be resolved before offering the service
commercially
By FRANK NORTON, Staff Writer
After six months
and a market trial that cost $500,000, Progress Energy said Thursday it
has no immediate plans to offer high-speed Internet service via its power
lines. The Raleigh, NC-based utility holding company said it will pull
the plug at the end of this month on its experiment as a broadband
Internet provider for about 400 Wake County homes.
"Overall, this
has been a successful test for us," said Lisa Myers, vice president of
energy delivery solutions for Progress. "We have gathered valuable
information about broadband over power lines and its
potential."
Matt Oja, director of emerging technologies for
Progress, said the company would need to resolve a few technical issues
that affect the stability of the connection before rolling out the service
commercially.
He said although residents participating in the
trial liked the ability to connect to the Internet through any power
outlet in the house, many experienced frequent signal disruptions caused
by outside barriers, such as large moving trucks, that would momentarily
throw them offline.
TiVo users will be able to zap recorded programs over the Internet
to their offices or vacation homes under new rules for the emerging
digital TV world that federal regulators approved Wednesday.
The FCC is actively promoting the
deployment of broadband power line technologies even while it has pending
proceedings to adopt permanent rules. Several manufacturers have indicated
in FCC filings that they are deploying demonstration systems in joint
ventures with Ameren, Consolidated Edison, Progress Energy and Southern.
As a way of protecting against stranded investments, the FCC has also
indicated that it will provide a grace period for the transition of any
broadband power line system deployed under its interim rules once its
permanent rules are adopted.
The most serious opposition to
deployment of broadband power line technologies comes from some existing
licensees who are concerned that these technologies would interfere with
their operations in spectrum below 50 MHz. Such licensees include amateur
radio, some aeronautical, maritime and Public Safety radio systems as well
as some Federal government systems. The FCC has tentatively found that the
interference potential to such systems is quite limited and that there are
effective means for power line operators to mitigate interference. The
FCCs proposed rules will also provide standardized measurement procedures
to develop a consistent method of defining what constitutes interference.
We expect that the FCC rulemaking proceedings will conclude within
six to twelve months. Therefore, clients who might be interested in this
technology, but are reluctant to take the lead, have time to study this
opportunity before the FCC adopts permanent rules.
Holland &
Knights telecommunications attorneys would be pleased to help you
understand the current and emerging regulatory requirements surrounding
this technology, provide regulatory support if you decide to deploy such
systems and assistance with filing comments in response to the FCCs
proposed rules.
The content of this article does not constitute
legal advice and should not be relied on in that way. Specific advice
should be sought about your specific circumstances.
This article from Healthcare
Information and Management Systems Society !!!!
re: FCCYs Broadband
Power-line Proposal Opening New Door to High-Speed Data and Communications
Services
MONDAQ.COM via NewsEdge Corporation : Originally published
1st Quarter 2004
Earlier this month the FCC proposed new rules
which would allow electric utilities to use the power-grid for commercial
broadband services. The FCCs action follows major technological advances
which make high-speed communications over electric lines economically and
technically viable. These technological innovations mean businesses and
consumers could soon be using the electric-grid as an alternative network
for consuming voice, data and video services. Such a system would
immediately compete with DSL and cable modem services by providing a third
pipe into the home and would significantly expand broadband capabilities
in rural and underserved areas.
The FCC wants to leverage
broadband power line technology to: (1) improve the competitiveness of the
broadband service market; (2) increase the availability of broadband
services in underserved areas; and (3) encourage the uses of these
advanced technologies to improve safety and efficiency of power
distribution by adding intelligent networking capabilities to the electric
grid. On this last point, at least one company has already filed
statements with the FCC confirming that these technologies will permit
them to better monitor and control electric system operations which will
improve reliability and reduce customer costs.
Once the FCC adopts
rules governing this service, electric utilities will be free to establish
a broadband service provider subsidiary to construct and operate
communications systems, or in the alternative to lease or otherwise
provide capacity for third parties to operate broadband power line,
communications systems. Utilities will also be allowed to construct and
operate broadband power line systems to meet internal communications
needs, including practices which will improve the electric grids safety
and reliability.
Yes, I did mention Hawaii in my previous posting! But, only in the
context of where the National Bureau of Standards has their far western
shortwave installation (WWVH). You obviously only skimed postings for key
words, then post comments and links without reading the full message. It's
just as important (and courteous) to read at least the same amout of text
as you post.
To repeat: I would still like to read your
feedback after veiwing the mpegs below. The links point to videos of
actual observational tests made at a variety of BPL test sites. "Every"
shortwave radio service will have to endure this interference, given the
present state of the art of BPL. Also, don't overlook the unknown long
term health implications from being constantly exposed to continuous RF
fields demonstrated in these videos.
Everyone owes it to him or
herself to view the intensity of the leaked rf energy that is released
from the power line grid that these videos will illustrate. That leaked rf
energy will bathe the street near the right of way where these lines exist
and will be distributed into every home that employs BPL for
Internet.
To repeat: Remember, it is not just ham radio
operators that will be effected, but also ship to shore radio links, short
wave broadcasters (including the VOA and countless others), shortwave
weather bulletin transmissions for overseas aircraft, shortwave Wx Fax
transmission for vessels that are beyond VHF/UHF land stations, The
National Bureau of Standards time transmission stations WWV and WWVH in
Hawaii and Boulder, Colorado (among countless other usages, are used to
automatically synchronize your wrist watch and other appliances). FEMA
would be crippled during serious disasters because typically all normal
local facilities would be rendered useless, which would only leave
shortwave for communications.
HECO
slowly bringing high-speed broadband to Hawaii Sunday, June 13, 2004
Hawaiian Electric Co. is testing broadband-over-power-line, or
BPL, technology that could make its operations more efficient and cost
effective.
It could also give you, the rate payers, more ways to
manage electricity usage, get high-speed Internet access, eliminate phone
bills and order video on demand, all through the power outlets in your
home.
"BPL is a technology we think is tremendously promising, but
we have to make sure the promise is true," said Karl Stahlkopf, HECO
senior vice president for energy solutions and chief technology
officer.
Devices with an Internet Protocol address -- such as
computers, phones and eventually water heaters and electric meters -- can
use BPL to communicate with HECO's servers.
IP-enabled electric
meters could be read automatically, saving wear and tear on meter-readers
who travel the island monthly, dealing with dogs and poor
visibility.
Such meters can be told to shut off the power or to
fire it up, saving the $100 cost of rolling out a technician.
It
sounds like a way to ax a whole bunch of jobs, but Stahlkopf says
employees could be moved into other positions.
HECO could use the
technology for monitoring power quality and equipment as well as detecting
outages, their locations and causes.
The benefits also interest
Consolidated Edison of New York Inc. The two companies have consulted
about the technology several times, said Tim Frost, ConEdison director of
corporate planning.
It is a big step toward the "smart grid," Frost
said.
If pictures and sound are needed to demonstrate why there is
such an opposition to BPL, please use your high speed Internet connection
now, and click on the MPG links below and discover what the high speed
broad band connection costs really are when transmitted via BPL. You'll
soon discover what every shortwave service will have to endure.
I read *that* news release
from the UPLC about a month or so ago as well. I have pretty much read all
of what the BPL proponents have issued thus far. If *you* read the release
that you submitted, you would have found some of the arrogance of which I
have spoken.
<sarcasm> I especially enjoyed the
following comment they made:
'"...UPLC also commented on amateur
radio opposition to the technology, urging the Commission to ignore
"armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and listen to
the reputable companies and entrepreneurs who are the real experts on BPL
and who have overcome enormous technical obstacles to make BPL a reality
in the U.S."' </sarcasm>
I took special umbrage with
that particular statement and sent a non-confrontational e-mail to the
contact e-mail address provided *AND* one to the webmaster of the page. It
turns out that the contact e-mail was invalid and I still haven't received
a reply from the webmaster. It's been nearly two months. So much for
dialogue.
It is obvious that the United Power Line Commission
"needs" to get this technology through all the hurtles at all costs, and
that amateur radio operators (who really *are* the "technical geeks"),
truly understand the nature of the BPL beast.
Remember, it is
not just ham radio operators that will be effected, but ship to shore
radio links, short wave broadcasters (including the VOA and countless
others), shortwave weather bulletin transmissions for overseas aircraft,
shortwave Wx Fax transmission for vessels that are beyond VHF/UHF land
stations, The National Bureau of Standards time transmission stations WWV
and WWVH in Hawaii and Boulder, Colorado at (among countless other usages,
are used to automatically synchronize your wrist watch and other
appliances). FEMA would be crippled during serious disasters because
typically all normal local facilities would be rendered useless, which
would only leave shortwave communications for communications.
UPLC
reminded the Commission that BPL is not just another broadband access
platform, but one that enables applications in ways that other
technologies do not by providing enhanced utility applications, home
networking, symmetric speeds, and low latency for a variety of services.
Unique applications will improve the efficiency and reliability of
electric service to utility customers as well as promote broadband
competition for consumers, carriers and ISPs - saving lives, reducing
electric generation costs, remedying the digital divide and conquering the
DSL- cable duopoly.
UPLC also commented on amateur radio opposition
to the technology, urging the Commission to ignore "armchair amateurs that
still use vacuum tube transmitters" and listen to the reputable companies
and entrepreneurs who are the real experts on BPL and who have overcome
enormous technical obstacles to make BPL a reality in the U.S. All the
field trials over the years in various parts of the country have shown
that the risk of interference from BPL is extraordinarily low, because it
produces only minimal radio frequency energy at a few points in the
system. Moreover, these systems will incorporate adaptive interference
mitigation capabilities that will effectively remedy any interference that
might result to fixed and mobile operations in the High Frequency (HF)
band (1.7-80 MHz).
"BPL is an exciting technology with a promising
future, but it's dependent on the FCC to develop rules that will encourage
companies to deploy systems, both for better electrical service and
competitive broadband," stated Bill Moroney, President and CEO of UPLC.
"If the goal of this Administration is universal affordable broadband
access by 2007, BPL is the best hope of achieving it."
WASHINGTON –
The FCC's proposals are appropriate; NTIA's recommendations and ARRL's
naysaying are misguided. The United Power Line Council (UPLC) forcefully
replied to concerns about harmful interference from BPL in reply comments
filed today, and urged the FCC to move forward quickly to develop rules
that will encourage more development and deployment of BPL services to the
public. Specifically, UPLC expressed its concerns with findings and
recommendations by the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) that overstate the risk of interference from BPL.
NTIA's proposals would place undue operating restrictions and impose
arbitrary measurement guidelines that threaten to delay the deployment of
BPL or preclude it altogether; however, the UPLC expressed its interest in
working with NTIA going forward. Moreover, UPLC did agree with NTIA that
BPL "has been studied to death already and the FCC should adopt rules
without further delay."
Thank you, but I read that
article several month ago.
But, that is not to say that any new
electromagnetic source introduced into the environment will advance past
the testing stage. Again, if BPL is found safe and does not cause harmful
interference, I think it would be wonderful. I would become a proponent.
However, I am still very skeptical. Unfortunately, there have been too
many incidences over the past three years where the industry has tried to
"push" this technology on us and failed to follow up on their
responsibilities of managing the testing phase properly. That whole
scenario has left me with a sour taste in my mouth. They will have to
demonstrate unequivocal proof before they can be trusted again. There is
another saying: 'Once fooled, your fault. Twice fooled, my
fault."
One of my occupations is in bio-engineering. I am also a
ham radio operator. If BPL is deployed and fails to meet the design
criteria as it was described, it would alter both my vocation and my
avocation. I am not willing to sit by quietly and have a hell bent
"run-a-way" industry walk all over me.
I have seen some very
optimistic innovations during my career that had to be cast aside because
they did not meet some very crucial tests. I would need see some serious
demonstrations of safety and reliability before implementation begins. The
shear number of inconsistencies that the BPL proponents tried to white
wash and push on the public has been staggering!
Thank you, but I read that
article several month ago.
But, that is not to say that any new
electromagnetic source introduced into the environment will advance past
the testing stage. Again, if BPL is found safe and does not cause harmful
interference, I think it would be wonderful. I would become a proponent.
However, I am still very skeptical. Unfortunately, there have been too
many incidences over the past three years where the industry has tried to
"push" this technology on us and failed to follow up on their
responsibilities of managing the testing phase properly. That whole
scenario has left me with a sour taste in my mouth. They will have to
demonstrate unequivocal proof before they can be trusted again. There is
another saying: 'Once fooled, your fault. Twice fooled, my
fault."
One of my occupations is in bio-engineering. I am also a
ham radio operator. If BPL is deployed and fails to meet the design
criteria as it was described, it would alter both my vocation and my
avocation. I am not willing to sit by quietly and have a hell bent
"run-a-way" industry walk all over me.
I have seen some very
optimistic innovations during my career that had to be cast aside because
they did not meet some very crucial tests. I would need see some serious
demonstrations of safety and reliability before implementation begins. The
shear number of inconsistencies that the BPL proponents tried to white
wash and push on the public has been staggering!
Columbia, Md.—FCC Chairman Michael
Powell Tuesday morning officially opened the Federal Communications
Commission’s new $750,000 anechoic—no echo—chamber, which will give
the FCC the ability to independently test claims and counterclaims of
harmful interference, within the commission’s laboratory.
“When you don’t have the ability to independently test, you
let a government agency really be at the mercy of companies who would be
happy to provide technical data, but just like statistics, or law or
economics are always going to be presented in the light most favorable to
what they want,†said Powell.
Since becoming chairman in 2001,
Powell has been a consistent supporter of the FCC’s lab located about an
hour’s drive from its headquarters. The FCC lab averaged an annual
budget of $50,000 for the 20 years preceding Powell's chairmanship. For
the past three years, the lab's annual budget has averaged $750,000.
Powell is technically savvy, telling those gathered that he had
set up a broadband-over-powerline system in his parents’ house. He is
the son of Secretary of State Colin Powell. The younger Powell has a Wi-Fi
network in his home.
In addition to the ribbon cutting and
demonstration of the new anechoic chamber, reporters and others were given
a tour of the FCC lab, including demonstrations of testing controversial
technologies, such as broadband over powerline and ultra-wideband.
=============== Hope this would end the debate of BPL
FEASIBILITY... ONWARD TO PROGRESS .... by the way VERIZON is increasing
it`s line fee in NJ and that would be 20% more of your telephone
bill....according to Sunday`s newspaper.
The Chipset (or their 200 Mbps
speed) has less to do with the actual problem experienced, than the actual
control operators or the industry's' delivery problems - or more
importantly - the local company's policies and their approach to problem
resolution. Even if the chipsets were rated at 1G, the same external
conditions would still apply. There has been a blatant absence and lack of
transparency in addressing measured rf fields that exceeded their own
declared output maximums.
With the kind of track records that the
industry has demonstrated, is it no wonder that the public should be
suspect of their final results?
On a similar note, you can spew
forth any number of foreign venues that have high speed BPL Internet
connectivity. They can continue to do what they want. They are sovereign
entities and will have to take care of their own problems down the road.
If you are enjoying your high speed Internet in Korea right know,
great! But, don't forget that Korea is not nearly as democratic as the US.
In addition, your and your family are now currently being exposed to rf
radiation fields that exceed those in the US. One only hopes that those
levels are not determined to be detrimental several years from now. Don't
forget the Madame Curie (the discoverer of radium) died of leukemia, a
consequence of her cavalier attitude toward this "interesting and curious"
new element. How long are you going to remain in Korea again?
In
many counties you can also purchase any over-the-count drugs physicians
recommend as well. Well, you can't in this country. ..And for well thought
out reasons. In this country all drugs go through a rigorous testing
process. Not so is others. Will I choose deliberate testing over cavalier
introduction? You can bet your Bippy!
There is an old saying here
in the Great Lakes region, perhaps you've heard of it at some point: "If
you go and jump in the lake, do I have to join you and jump in as well?"
The bottom line is this. Because of the pecuniary interest that the
industry stands to gain, we should all be suspicious of their actual
intend.
Every action imposed upon a society has had a reaction in
some quarter be it positive or negative. I think the consequences of
hastily conjuring up a BPL policy without properly studying all the
consequences of harmful radio interference or long term health issues, is
unconscionab
Why were MALAYSIA, SOUTH KOREA,
and Japan interested to venture again in BROADBAND OVER POWER LINES using
the newest BPL technology available ??? South Korea is already leading the
broadband internet and their connection average speed is around 8 mbps
unlike U.S. 1-3 mbps only ?
re: S Korea to boost web access via
power lines Jun 12, 2004
SEOUL - The South Korean government
plans to ease regulations restricting high-speed Internet access through
power lines, allowing customers to surf the Web by plugging a computer
modem into conventional electrical outlets, a ministry said on Friday.
The Ministry of Information and Communication said in August it
will submit a bill to let operators offer commercial broadband Internet
services via power lines without the ministry's prior approval.
The bill requires parliamentary approval and is expected to become
effective beginning in October, the ministry said.
So far,
would-be service providers have been obliged to get the ministry's
approval to use the power line communication service because of concerns
over possible interference with radio waves.
The idea of broadband
Internet access over power lines is not new, but it has gained little
customer acceptance because of the regulatory hurdle, according to the
ministry.
The move is part of the government's effort to
"digitalize" 10 million households by the end of 2007.
"The
deregulation is aimed at boosting home-networking businesses in the
country," a ministry official said.
The Korea Electric Research
Institute is poised to develop a power-line broadband Internet technology
by the end of September, which promises to send data at a speed of 54
megabits per second, nearly 10 times faster than existing broadband
Internet services.
South Korea leads the world in per capita
broadband Internet access.
About 73% of the nation's 48 million
people have access to the Internet, with 11.3 million having high-speed,
always-on connections.
Was the BPL chipset they use in
Penn Yan, NY similar to the newest 200 mbps BPL chipset or the AGE-OLD
CHIPSET like the ones they used in EUROPE DECADES AGO and was not
successful too ?
NEC to Conduct Field Test for PLC Communication at
Up to 200Mbps July 19, 2004 (TOKYO) -- NEC Corp announced on July 12,
2004 that it will launch a field trial of high-speed communications
leveraging power line communication (PLC) technology.
The
technology uses power lines laid in buildings for data communications. The
modem to be used for the experiment is made by Toyo Communication
Equipment Co, Ltd, which offers the highest data rate in the industry,
achieving up to 200Mbps. The demonstrative experiment will be performed in
the facility of the Kansai Electric Power Co, Inc located in Ibaraki city
of Osaka-fu, Japan.
PLC is a communication technique that will
allow data communications to take place just by putting information plugs
into electrical outlets wherever they are, and is considered to be the key
driver to the prevalence of home electric appliances on the net.
NEC's test for high-speed PLC will utilize the high-frequency band
ranging from 2MHz to 30MHz. It is concerned, however, that this frequency
band may interfere with wireless solutions including an amateur radio
system. Therefore, the experiment is permitted only until March 2005 for
the purpose of developing the voltage leakage suppression
technology.
Such a test has been performed by power companies like
Tokyo Electric Power Co and the Kansai Electric Power Co, and home
electric appliance makers like Matsushita Electric Industrial Co, Ltd.
Their common objective is to have the high-frequency band of 2MHz to 30MHz
released to the public for the PLC application. If many test results show
little possibility for the frequency band to interfere with wireless
solutions, the de-regulation of the band may be
accelerated.
BROADBAND PROVIDER TO DROP BPL IN NEW YORK TRIAL
COMMUNITY
The broadband provider that's been testing BPL in the
Village of Penn Yan, New York, reportedly plans to "move away" from
that technology. The Western New York community of some 5000 residents
has been considering various proposals with Data Ventures (DVI) to
offer broadband service. A BPL trial has been underway in Penn Yan for
several months. The village reportedly would get 10 percent of the
generated revenue. According to an article in the July 28 edition of
the Finger Lakes Times Online, DVI now is proposing to employ wireless
mesh "WiFi" technology instead of BPL...
The Finger Lakes Times
report quotes Burling as saying that his company didn't feel BPL was
"commercially deployable." He also cited issues with the BPL trial
including security concerns and interference--which will not be an
issue with the wireless system.
Burling told ARRL that the Penn Yan
BPL system remains on line but would be shut down once DVI starts
deploying its wireless system. As for BPL, "We are going to sit back
and wait for an official ruling from the FCC and go from there,"
Burling added.
Penn Yan already has rejected two DVI proposals to
bring high-speed Internet service to the community, the newspaper said.
Village officials reportedly met again with DVI representatives this
week. DVI is partnering with Nortel to offer the wireless
service...
ARRL also has learned that Energy East--a cooperative of
New York State Electric & Gas and Rochester Gas &
Electric--decided against deploying BPL in their Western New York
service area. Energy East based its decision in large part on the high
levels of radio frequency interference an engineer and company
officials observed during a visit to the Penn Yan field trial.
On
July 29, Grand Haven, Michigan, announced that it had become the
first community in the US to deploy a WiFi network http://www.ottawawireless.net/about-us/press-room.html that blankets the city and up to 15 miles off shore in Lake Michigan
with broadband Internet access.
For more information on BPL, visit
the "Broadband Over Power Line (BPL) and Amateur Radio http://www.arrl.org/bpl/ page on the ARRL Web
site.
The next time you visit a hospital, notice the signs
posted at the entrance “TURN CELL PHONE OFF†or “NO CELL PHONE
USEâ€.
This is because they radiate (or transmit like BPL) and may
cause life support equipment to malfunction, pacemakers to cease working
and monitoring equipment to give erroneous reading. In other words these
radiated signals could "kill" someone. Broad band internet at hospitals is
ALWAYS provided with shielded methods like fiber optics or coaxial cable,
to do otherwise is to endanger lives . If you have ever been in an MRI
testing room at a medical facillity, you notice that the whole room is a
shielded metal box with radiation sealed doors and windows to prevent
harmful radiation from leaking to the outside world. BPL radiation's in or
near hospitals could kill patients. Consider your father or grandfather
wearing a pacemaker who visits a business or store with BPL unknowingly
and the BPL radiated signal stops his pacemaker.
Restaurants post
signs, “Microwave Oven In Use†to protect patrons, but microwave ovens
are shielded and radiate very little. Power lines are not shielded and
cannot be and will radiate a lot. During BPL testing, signals were
detected several miles away. Radio signals pass right through walls , we
know this because how else would you be able to listen to your radio in
the house. Have you ever used your cell phone in an elevator? Wood,
plaster, plastic, glass are invisible to radio waves. The only way to
contains RF is an enclosed metal box or shield completely around the
conductor, which is impossible to do with high voltage power lines, so BPL
technology is fatally flawed and will never be able to be shielded and
thus will always endanger medically sensitive instruments and
people.
Why don't they just insulate the lines that carry
BPL? Or transmit at lower powers with more repeaters. If it is such a
wonderful technology, then it would be worth the extra expense. To prevent
BPL interference within homes, stick a filter at the pole to prevent
signals from entering the house, and transmit the information via wifi
from the pole.
Here is the article in Japn re:
BPL trial in the 2-30 Mhz band using 200 mbps BPL modem... remember our
current cheapest internet broadband speed is DSL 1.5 mbps or cable at 3/1
mbps !!!
re: By the way, here`s another web article on BPL... a
follow-up of JAPAN`s quest for BPL LEADERSHIP !!!
NEC to Conduct Field Test for PLC Communication at
Up to 200Mbps July 19, 2004 (TOKYO) -- NEC Corp announced on July 12,
2004 that it will launch a field trial of high-speed communications
leveraging power line communication (PLC) technology.
The
technology uses power lines laid in buildings for data communications. The
modem to be used for the experiment is made by Toyo Communication
Equipment Co, Ltd, which offers the highest data rate in the industry,
achieving up to 200Mbps. The demonstrative experiment will be performed in
the facility of the Kansai Electric Power Co, Inc located in Ibaraki city
of Osaka-fu, Japan.
PLC is a communication technique that will
allow data communications to take place just by putting information plugs
into electrical outlets wherever they are, and is considered to be the key
driver to the prevalence of home electric appliances on the net.
NEC's test for high-speed PLC will utilize the high-frequency band
ranging from 2MHz to 30MHz. It is concerned, however, that this frequency
band may interfere with wireless solutions including an amateur radio
system. Therefore, the experiment is permitted only until March 2005 for
the purpose of developing the voltage leakage suppression
technology.
Such a test has been performed by power companies like
Tokyo Electric Power Co and the Kansai Electric Power Co, and home
electric appliance makers like Matsushita Electric Industrial Co, Ltd.
Their common objective is to have the high-frequency band of 2MHz to 30MHz
released to the public for the PLC application. If many test results show
little possibility for the frequency band to interfere with wireless
solutions, the de-regulation of the band may be accelerated.
It isn't
the overhead 60Hz electrical power going through all of those open power
line conduits that is of concern. The issue is the new *introduction* of a
continuous presence of broad spectrum radio frequency energy, ranging from
2-80 Mhz, which has not been proven safe, conclusively. Such energy when
applied to open wire will continually bathe the local environment (and
people) in a constant RF energy field. That is of concern.
It
doesn't really matter that congested urban areas have been exposed to
power line energy for generations. But, as "tech geek" would have you
believe, *that* "proves(?)" that using open wires would be safe. That is a
very simplistic rational.
What is of concern, however, is the
capricious introduction of a new energy field into our living environment
using power lines. Power transmission lines were never designed nor
intended for transmission of RF energy, and because of that design flaw,
will most definitely emit rf leakage throughout the
environment.
Certainly, if the designers intended to use them as RF
conduits as well as power transfer, they certainly would have designed
them differently.
Regarding the comment "tech geek" made about
microwave ovens:
Certainly, microwave ovens use energy in microwave
spectrum, and yes, energys in that spectrum *HAS* been proven to cause
tissue and chromosomal damage. However, microwave ovens have been designed
to focus their energies towards a specific target, and more importantly,
have been designed to shield their radiation from
leakage.
Please remember this article
below. Let`s learn from the SOUTH KOREANS.
RE: S Korea to boost web
access via power lines
SEOUL - The South Korean government plans to
ease regulations restricting high-speed Internet access through power
lines, allowing customers to surf the Web by plugging a computer modem
into conventional electrical outlets, a ministry said on Friday.
The Ministry of Information and Communication said in August it
will submit a bill to let operators offer commercial broadband Internet
services via power lines without the ministry's prior approval.
The bill requires parliamentary approval and is expected to become
effective beginning in October, the ministry said.
So far,
would-be service providers have been obliged to get the ministry's
approval to use the power line communication service because of concerns
over possible interference with radio waves.
The idea of broadband
Internet access over power lines is not new, but it has gained little
customer acceptance because of the regulatory hurdle, according to the
ministry.
The move is part of the government's effort to
"digitalize" 10 million households by the end of 2007.
"The
deregulation is aimed at boosting home-networking businesses in the
country," a ministry official said.
The Korea Electric Research
Institute is poised to develop a power-line broadband Internet technology
by the end of September, which promises to send data at a speed of 54
megabits per second, nearly 10 times faster than existing broadband
Internet services.
South Korea leads the world in per capita
broadband Internet access.
About 73% of the nation's 48 million
people have access to the Internet, with 11.3 million having high-speed,
always-on connections.
RE: South Korea leads the way
By John Borland and Michael Kanellos Staff Writers, CNET News.com
July 28, 2004, 4:00 AM PDT
SEOUL, South Korea--Matt Renck is
spoiled.
Ever since moving here to teach English two years
ago, Renck has had a high-speed Internet connection of 8 megabits per
second--only about average for a South Korean apartment, but nearly eight
times the typical broadband speed in U.S. households. He watches TV shows
over this connection, creates multimedia projects for his class, and
regularly updates a Weblog.
None of what he does is revolutionary;
it just happens far faster than it would in America. And that's a little
revolutionary all by itself.
"I didn't realize how much the Web
had to offer until I got to Korea," said Renck, a programmer by training.
"I couldn't appreciate it until I got here and saw what true high-speed
access does to change your perception of how fast information truly
moves."
For Americans, almost none of whom have access to speeds
that Renck and many South Koreans take for granted, this difference is
jarring. The United States considers itself the center of technological
innovation, yet South Korea has gone considerably further in making a
mainstream reality out of the futuristic promises of bygone dot-com days.
Many U.S. executives and policy makers are quick to dismiss the
disparity, noting correctly that South Korea's densely populated areas
have made it easier for telecommunications companies to offer extremely
fast service to large numbers of people. But even with such geographic and
demographic differences, the United States can learn some valuable lessons
from South Korea's experience in jump-starting a broadband powerhouse.
"I think there are a quite a few lessons," said Taylor Reynolds,
an International Telecommunications Union analyst who recently completed a
survey of Internet and mobile services in South Korea. "Most of the growth
is tied to effective competition, which you don't see in a lot of places
in the United States."
In New York City, MILLIONS of
subway train passengers are exposed to overhead and tracks open electrical
wires that powers the electric train everyday. Are they dead by now of
your so-called low level radiation from uncovered electric wires?
Just an eye opener for your BPL anxiety.
I remember long
time ago, my parents used to say, don`t look at the TELEVISION SCREEN
directly and don`t get closer to it because of the dangerous radiation
emitted by the TV. Now, if i say that to the younger generation, they`ll
probably laughed at me.
By the way, wear an X-RAY lead gown
everytime you use your microwave oven, you might get cancer from using
your microwave everyday... just for laughs....!
Thanks, sunbouncer. We’re on the same page. Not
to mention that tech geek’s link in response to my post dealt with the
safety of powerlines and not to deploying broadband across them. With this
logic, I could conclude that since leaf blowers are found to be safe,
there should be no reluctance on tech geek’s part to my loading one up
with lead based paint dust, asbestos fibers, and maybe a little
Thalidomide and spraying it all over his house, wife, and kids. Especially
if he's shilling for the leaf blower industry. I’m no Luddite. I’m all
for bringing broadband to everyone everywhere. I just want it to be done
in as safe a manner as possible. FTTH may be a more expensive way to go,
at least upfront, but let’s not lose sight of the possibility of
immeasurable unforeseen costs of alternatives.
This is in reply to "tech geek's" rebuttle to
"randomchaos" posting of 7/23/2004, regarding: "BPL ANXIETY"
"randomchaos" brings up an interesting point that I had not even
considered. "randomchaos'" posting has less to do with the efficacy of
BPL, but rather its possibly (albiet) remotely negative consequences. If
and when BPL is widely destributed, "randomchaos" rhetorically asks:
"Where will I go to get out of the additional radio/radiation spray?"
The answer is?: NO WHERE!
Long term studies have not been
conclusive regarding continuous low level radiation effects on mammalian
tissue. However, only educated "assumptions" about the dangers have been
made thus far.
If such low level radio/radiation is discovered to
be problematic, this could really become a Pandora's box, who's long term
consequences may not be felt for years.
There have been countless
examples in public health issues where the introduction of "new and
improved products" were thought to be beneficial to society, only to be
removed because they had near catastrophic consequences. Clearly the rush
to introducing improvements in our society has, on too many occasions,
been attempted without clearly demonstrating its benign safety (i.e.,
cyclomatates-sweeteners, red dye #2, shoe store X-Ray machines, lead
pipes, certain insulators, carbon tetracholoride, DDT, CFC etc.). The list
could go on and on.
Just because we live in a "modern" age, does
not preclude us from introducing dangerous products into our
environment.
We should not be willing to take assumptions when it
comes to protecting public health.
I would hope that it should take
more than a simple Internet "link" taking us to an article authored by a
committee that is a proponent of low level radiation in order to dispel
any fears of irriversable consequences.
I am convinced that all new
products need to be thoroughly tested (just like FDA requirements) before
any roll-out is made. The consequences of cavalier introductions could
become devastating.
Some hospitals in the United States
are using broadband technology to improve patient care and cope with a
national shortage of critical care physicians. Correspondent James
Hilliard visits Sutter General Hospital in Sacramento, Calif., where
patients in the intensive care unit are being monitored by doctors a mile
away in a control room called the eICU.
A
life-saving technology By John Borland and Jim Hu Staff Writers,
CNET News.com July 26, 2004, 4:00 AM PDT
In a small military
hospital in Guam, a cardiac patient lay unconscious as a catheter was slid
carefully into the right chamber of his heart.
Day 1: A life-saving
technology Day 2: Why policies must change Day 3: South Korea leads the
way Day 4: Cable, DSL face threats Bandwidth roundtable Editors' picks
from Web Reporters' broadband blog Readers' feedback here News.com-Harris
Interactive Poll Back to introThe surgery was fairly routine, save for one
notable absence: The physician in charge wasn't in the operating room
during the procedure. In fact, he wasn't even on the island.
Dr.
Benjamin Berg supervised the entire surgery while in front of a computer
screen 3,500 miles away at Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu. He
dictated the procedure to the less-experienced colleague who performed the
operation, monitoring every move with a high-resolution video camera while
getting instant sensor data from the catheter itself.
"The
real-time information requires a continuous broadband connection," Berg
said. "The delay in the transmission of data about pressure inside the
heart would be unacceptable."
The delicate process illustrates why
high-speed Internet access--once considered a luxury--is viewed
increasingly as a necessity. Broadband is being used in projects that
could revolutionize such critical areas as education, health care and
public safety while creating enormous opportunities in business and
entertainment.
Powerline
broadband access available soon By CHARLES F. MOREIRA Wednesday
July 21, 2004
SUBANG JAYA: POWERLINE carrier systems provider CPS
Mobile Technology Sdn Bhd will by the end of the month begin offering
equipment that provides 14Mbps broadband Internet access over a
combination of electrical power lines and wireless links.
“We’ve just completed successful pilot trials with TNB
Research," CPS Mobile Technology marketing manager Anwar Sultan told
In.Tech recently.
The trials involved broadband access to student
hostels in Universiti Tenaga Nasional at its Bangi campus and Universiti
Utara Malaysia hostels at its Sintok campus.
I am a small market
radio broadcaster who appreciates the thoughtful approach you take to your
position. It is difficult to balance all the viewpoints to which you are
subjected.
I do feel that there is a disconnect between inside the
Beltway and out here in the field. I admire the attempts of you and the
other Commissioners to visit radio stations around the country ... but I
must point out that some of those you might think are "small" stations
aren't even halfway there!
We are operating very small businesses
with very small margins. Our success or failure depends entirely on our
relationships with our communities. Some of the objectionable behavior
from our larger-market cousins is simply not an option for us.
So
we are significantly different from the radio to which you are usually
subjected.
First, we have very few resources. Even simple
paperwork requirements, for example, place a disproportionately large
burden on us.
Second, as I pointed out above, we are in a
self-regulating environment. If we are to succeed as a business, we have
to sustain the goodwill of the community, listeners and advertisers. If we
stray, they let us know immediately!
I hope you can keep these
points in mind as you consider the impact on our businesses of such
initiatives as program logging, EEO, public service minimums,
recordkeeping and retention and so on.
By and large I believe
small market broadcasters are ethical, moral and good business people.
They try hard to do the right thing by their communities and by the
Commission. We continue to be an important communications fulcrum for our
communities, and I hope the Commission can think about ways to help us
succeed and keep on providing good service.
Thanks for
listening,
Jay Mitchell Fairfield Media Group,
Inc. Fairfield, IA
Regarding the proposed BPL rollout from the power
industry:
Please tell me how this is a COST EFFECTIVE solution for
the rural subscriber? Having to jumper every transformer and create relays
at appropriate intervals all the way to the rural subscriber's farm or
ranch house doesn't sound very cost effective to me... Am I missing
something here? All I hear them talking about is how they are going to be
able to provide a service competitive with existing broadband services in
urban locales.
Is this same power service provider the very same
power company that can't find a noisy ground or the source of any other
type of RF interference today? Are these the same companies whom we are
going to count on to solve the RF interference problems associated with
BPL?
It doesn’t take an MBA to figure out that if a
school district is forced, every year, to pay Telcos for 24/7 –including
all nights, weekends, vacations, including three summer months broadband
T-1 or more per-month connections between all buildings as opposed to
buying sets of backbone radios ONE TIME and making the same – or even
higher (than T-1) connections, the overall e-rate funds could go MUCH
further. (last time I checked, there were pending requests from schools
and libraries for $5 Billion a year, while Congress fixed the maximum at
$2.25 Billion.)
In one case I studied for the NSF years ago, a
Telco bid $1.2 million up front to connect 25 school buildings with T-1,
wired ‘service’ and then wanted to charge $12,000 a month until the
end of time – or $2.9 million over the first 10 years, while a one-man
Wireless company bid a one-time purchase and installation cost of $600,000
and that’s ALL it took for the same 10 year projection. Today that same
school district could be connected up at 10mbps to 45mbps – DS3 speed
-for under $150,000, one time. Or do it themselves buying off the shelf
radios for under $50,000! But not with that stupid Rule!
Now some
FCC lawyers have tried to say the restriction was ‘statutory’ but they
NEVER were able to document for me the legal rationale. If it IS
statutory, then ask Congress to change it for gawds sake. Why would it
object?
For that rule prevented 16,000 School Districts
from buying, learning how, and deploying (either themselves as every
homeowner today can or by an installation contract) unlicensed broadband
radios at the VERY least to link their 84,000 scattered school buildings
with 55 million students and 3 million teachers in them daily, at
ridiculous low and NON-RECURRING communications costs.
No, that
rule FORCED the schools the last 8 years to purchase only broadband
telecommunications SERVICES, not DEVICES, which has meant, practically,
that the same Telephone companies who collect $2.25 Billion in
‘Universal Service Funds’ for E-rate from every hapless rate payer,
every year, turned around to bid to schools THEIR broadband recurring-cost
broadband services, which costs thousands a month, AND which the schools
have to go back and request the same amount of e-rate funds every single
year to the end of time. The e-rate has become a perpetual cash-cow for
local telephone companies. They love it. While School Districts are still
unable to buy, except with their own separate-from-e-rate funds unlicensed
broadband radios by which they COULD be connecting up their buildings,
modular classrooms, and even teachers and students across the district
from homes! THAT would be the face of future
education! (continued)
Chairman Powell here is a NEW SUBJECT that has
stuck in my – and every other unlicensed Wireless-Education advocate’s
craw - since the FCC Commission under Reed Hunt made a very bad rule
implementing the E-Rate way back in 1996. He didn’t get it, and neither
did his successor William Kinnard. With your advocacy of Wireless, and
especially unlicensed wireless, revisit and change that bad FCC rule and
you will do more to spur ‘broadband’ deployment to every last K-12
school in the nation, and start moving students into THEIR wireless
future, with E-rate funds, urban and rural than ANY other one thing you
could do.
Sarah Whitesell your FCC associate chief of ‘strategic
planning and policy analysis’ has announced an October 6th
‘symposium’ to highlight e-rate ‘success stories’ and ‘best
practices.’ Now I am not sure what is behind this program-congratulatory
effort to publicize activities under the recurring scandal-plagued (huge
wastes or misuses of e-rate funds in numerous places), but I will tell
you, and her one thing (your Policy chief, Robert Pepper has heard this
from me for 8 years) the E-rate rule that prohibited schools from BUYING
AND OWNING with e-rate funds, wireless broadband devices (either
unlicensed OR licensed - as in microwave links) was, and still is, a huge
mistake. (continued)
"Nearly
all electrical utilities are exploring BPL because the potential benefits
are so substantial. Power companies face a number of issues in doing this,
for example, how to assess the performance and safety of
repeaters/routers, medium- and low-voltage coupling hardware, and other
equipment before buying. Other issues include how best to put this
equipment in place and how to keep the overall system operating well and
prevent it from interfering with power delivery. The new standard will
help them deal with these concerns."
Adding broadband capability
to a local power distribution system is relatively straightforward. A
computer-router combination and a coupler take the signal from an optical
fiber cable as it enters a substation and imposes it on the electric
current. The signal travels over the medium-voltage lines, with repeaters
placed every 0.5 to 1 mile to keep the signal viable.
A
repeater/router near a residence or business extracts the signal off the
medium voltage just before the transformer and injects it onto the
low-voltage wiring on the other side of the transformer. The signal is now
on all of the low voltage wiring within the structure and can be accessed
at any outlet by plugging in a modem.
Anyone from the utility,
Internet service provider and BPL equipment sectors who wants to help
develop this standard is invited to join the IEEE 1675 Working Group. For
more information on this standard and its working group, visit
http//grouper.ieee.org/groups/bop.
IEEE 1675 is sponsored by the
IEEE Power Engineering Society, Power System Communications Committee.
About the IEEE Standards Association
The IEEE Standards
Association, a globally recognized standards-setting body, develops
consensus standards through an open process that brings diverse parts of
an industry together. These standards set specifications and procedures
based on current scientific consensus. The IEEE-SA has a portfolio of more
than 870 completed standards and more than 400 standards in development.
Over 15,000 IEEE members worldwide belong to IEEE-SA and voluntarily
participate in standards activities. For further information on IEEE-SA
see: http://standards.ieee.org/ =================================
re: IEEE Starts Standard to
Support Broadband Communications over Local Power Lines
PISCATAWAY, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 20, 2004--The ability to
send high-speed digital data over the power lines between substations and
homes and offices is attracting increasing attention because it can make
every wall outlet a portal to the Internet. In seeking to help realize
this potential, the IEEE has begun to develop IEEE P1675(TM), "Standard
for Broadband over Power Line Hardware."
When finished, IEEE P1675
will give electric utilities a comprehensive standard for installing the
required hardware on distribution lines, both underground and overhead,
which provide the infrastructure for broadband-over-power-line (BPL)
systems. It also will include installation requirements for the protection
of those who work on BPL equipment and to ensure such systems do not place
the public at risk. The standard is targeted for completion in mid 2006.
"By turning the local power grid into a broadband conduit, we
create another option for universal access to the Internet," says Terrence
Burns, Chair of the IEEE BPL Standards Working Group. "This technology
offers a neat solution to the 'last-mile' quandary of how to bring
information from long-distance fiber optic cables to individual computers
without investing in costly infrastructure.
Neither the government nor the FCC (the same
thing!) own anything. The People own the resources of this country, and
the People retain all rights but those explicitely given to the government
(and can be taken away again).
The Communications Act of 1934 was a
mistake that we have lived with for sixty years. It is time to recognize
it for what it is: a substantial assault on the freedom of speech which
has haunted us for most of the twentieth century... http://www.spectacle.org/896/mistake.html
Just like any
natural resouce, the public has an interest in it. Anyone will tell you
that to polute an natural resouce (be it a stream, lake, river, orcean,
desert - ...or (in this case) electromagnetic spectrum) is ethically and
morally wrong. And as our western logic dictates, the end does not
necessarily justify the means.
I don't know about the rest of you,
but I am becoming more convinced that tech geek is a paid lobyist for the
BPL industry. Count 'em. He has made 31 posts since July 14th (average of
5/day). Remind me again, what does a lobbyist get paid
again?
Just like any
natural resouce, the public has an interest in it. Anyone will tell you
that to polute an natural resouce (be it a stream, lake, river, orcean,
desert - ...or (in this case) electromagnetic spectrum) is ethically and
morally wrong. And as our western logic dictates, the end does not
necessarily justify the means.
I don't know about the rest of you,
but I am becoming more convinced that tech geek is a paid lobyist for the
BPL industry. Count 'em. He has made 31 posts since July 14th (average of
5/day). Remind me again, what does a lobbyist get paid
again?
This is a very Interesting
article from USATODAY regarding VOIP as the safe choice for NATIONAL
EMERGENCY ALERT dissemination...post 9/11 tragedy !!!
re:
Posted 7/19/2004 6:30 PM
Act II: VoIP becoming safe choice for
emergencies By Alan Joch, Federal Computer Week
Following the
Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Commerce Department officials realized
the agency's emergency warning system didn't work. Largely dependent on an
antiquated and unreliable public address system, agency officials couldn't
reach their staff quickly enough to keep everyone safe. "It was a bad
situation [in] that we couldn't communicate with employees," said Karen
Hogan, Commerce's deputy chief information officer.
During the past
three years, Commerce officials have worked to solve the problem. If an
emergency were to threaten people at headquarters today, staff members
would hear special alerts delivered via their phones.
Thanks to a
new software application that runs in conjunction with the agency's
voice-over-IP (VoIP) network, IP speaker phones emit emergency broadcasts.
Since the application's introduction two years ago, Commerce officials
have not had to use it for an emergency. Nevertheless, it's paying off in
peace of mind, Hogan said.
The application, from Berbee
Information Networks, is one of a number of new tools that are helping
take VoIP to a new level. Federal, state and local agencies are routinely
adopting the new technology, which merges voice and data through a single
IP network.
VoIP followers are discovering a new world of
second-generation applications that surpass anything POTS — plain old
telephone service — could offer. "This technology is ready for prime
time — it's not just for geeks anymore," Hogan said. "Users are
delighted because they're seeing some real productivity
enhancers."
New tools
more....http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-19-voip-act-2_x.htm
I thought our communication
spectrum owned by the Federal Government and its the FCC manages it. So if
you`re given a free spectrum, there is a possibility that it could be
taken by the Federal Government for higher purpose or for the benefits of
the majority... imho.
By the way, here`s another web article on
BPL... a follow-up of JAPAN`s quest for BPL LEADERSHIP !!!
NEC to Conduct Field Test for PLC Communication at
Up to 200Mbps July 19, 2004 (TOKYO) -- NEC Corp announced on July 12,
2004 that it will launch a field trial of high-speed communications
leveraging power line communication (PLC) technology.
The
technology uses power lines laid in buildings for data communications. The
modem to be used for the experiment is made by Toyo Communication
Equipment Co, Ltd, which offers the highest data rate in the industry,
achieving up to 200Mbps. The demonstrative experiment will be performed in
the facility of the Kansai Electric Power Co, Inc located in Ibaraki city
of Osaka-fu, Japan.
PLC is a communication technique that will
allow data communications to take place just by putting information plugs
into electrical outlets wherever they are, and is considered to be the key
driver to the prevalence of home electric appliances on the net.
NEC's test for high-speed PLC will utilize the high-frequency band
ranging from 2MHz to 30MHz. It is concerned, however, that this frequency
band may interfere with wireless solutions including an amateur radio
system. Therefore, the experiment is permitted only until March 2005 for
the purpose of developing the voltage leakage suppression
technology.
Such a test has been performed by power companies like
Tokyo Electric Power Co and the Kansai Electric Power Co, and home
electric appliance makers like Matsushita Electric Industrial Co, Ltd.
Their common objective is to have the high-frequency band of 2MHz to 30MHz
released to the public for the PLC application. If many test results show
little possibility for the frequency band to interfere with wireless
solutions, the de-regulation of the band may be
accelerated.
We can all
certainly take you at your word that you are "just a tech savvy geek" And,
I appreciate and agree whole heartedly with your assessment that we are
all victims of the monopolistic media/telecommincations companies....
paying exorbitant fees for hdtv, web, phone calls. Trust me, when I say
that all Americans are way-overdue for some releif of fees that we must
pay from commuinication companies who's bottom line is determined by how
much money can be extracted out of the wallet of the consumer. Something
has got to be done... the sooner the better.
We're hoping that
you're not suggesting that the amateur radio community simply endure the
interference as a cost of lowered fees.
But, in one of your
previous posts you mentioned that AMATEUR RADIO (and other short wave
services) and the BPL industry should should work together to resolve the
interference problem. You never really answered the question as to how
those entities would work together.
Wouldn't such a scenerio be
likend to a disagreement between an Intruder and a Property Owner?
Certainly, you wouldn't suggest that to resolve their comflict the two of
them should work it out together! The intruder is violating someone else's
space. Is it not the intruder's responsibility to exit from the
property?
Why broadband over power lines is a bad idea –
part II of II David Coursey ZD NET Executive Editor,
AnchorDesk Friday, Feb. 27, 2004
The NTIA has warned the FCC
that, unless it's carefully regulated, BPL could cause significant
interference to government users of shortwave radio frequencies. The NTIA
is conducting its own BPL study, though it has not yet been released.
Another study, by ARRL, the national organization for amateur radio, is
also due to be released in the next few weeks to months.
WHY
SHOULD YOU CARE about all this? Because BPL could have a negative impact
on the entire world of radio communication. Remember what I said earlier
about the radio waves flying off into space? Even the low-power signals
BPL would employ can, under the right conditions, travel around the globe.
That means BPL systems in the United States could cause interference in
places far removed from whatever benefit BPL is supposed to provide.
Interference is pollution and, once it starts, can prove impossible to
stop. If not properly managed, BPL has the potential to ruin large
portions of the shortwave radio spectrum. Like old-growth forests, radio
spectrum is precious and for much the same reason: They just aren't making
any more of it. What we have needs to be wisely managed for the greatest
public benefit. BPL needs to be watched carefully to make sure a
technology we don't really need--isn't there enough broadband out there
already?--doesn't cause problems we'll never be able to resolve. If
you're interested in this issue, please read some of the documents
available and make your feelings known to the FCC.
Why broadband over power lines is a bad idea - part
I of II David Coursey ZD NET Executive Editor,
AnchorDesk Friday, Feb. 27, 2004
Since last we visited the
issue of transmitting the Internet over power lines (the big electric
company kind, not the wires in your walls), the Federal Communications
Commission, lapdog to the monied interests, has issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the second step in making broadband over power
lines (BPL) a reality.
In a rare moment of governmental clarity,
an NPRM is precisely what it seems to be: Advance notice of how the FCC is
going to give zillionaires what they want at the expense of us ordinary
folks. The NPRM follows a Notice of Inquiry that was issued last April and
generated more than 5,000 comments, many from angry ham radio operators.
HERE'S THE DEAL: BPL is a technology that uses radio waves,
transmitted over power lines, to provide broadband Internet or other data
connectivity. The problem with BPL is simple physics: Radio waves like to
fly off into space. When they do, interference results. In order to get
broadband speeds, BPL uses a large number of frequencies, some of which
are capable of traveling literally around the world even on the small
transmitter power that BPL systems use.
BPL would operate as an
unlicensed radio service under Part 15 of the FCC's rules. This is the
same section that allows most of the unlicensed devices used in home and
business. All of these devices are supposed to operate in such a way that
they don't interfere with licensed radio services. Among the leaders
in the fight against BPL is the amateur radio community. Ham radio
operators, including myself, see BPL as a potentially huge source of
communications-disrupting interference. The hams have found an ally in the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the
Commerce Department agency charged with coordinating the federal
government's own radio systems.
This is in reply to
"sunbouncer". I`m just a tech savvy geek and a just like you a victim of
monopolistic media/telecommincations companies.... paying exorbitant fees
for hdtv, web, phone calls. I`m not an engineer but I constantly updating
research on the internet for what i think useful technology for the
majority like the BPL. SEARCH ON BPL: http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?FORM=SRCHNS&ds=en-us-p13ni&q=BROADBAND%20over%20POWER%20LINES
As
for the BPL solution, as of now OFDM technique seems to be the one... as
stated in most BPL enthusiasts websites. Howabout for Amateur hobbyist, is
there an engineer that could solve this problem or they`re just a lame
duck awaiting others move for advancement ?
Mr. Chairman i commend
you for your decision on NEXTEL case and not being afraid of lawsuit
threat from Verizon. Instant walkie-talkie communication is a secure form
and this is not a hobby....and an emergency tool also accross the
nation... and if link to other countries will be a world-wide phenomenon
too....just my opinion !!!
"We hope AMATEUR RADIO and
BPL Computer engineers will work together in resolving each issues."
I don't know is meant by that statement(?). Interference to
AMATEUR radio operations has been proven to originate from BPL sources in
a variety of both foreign and domestic studies. Is tech geek suggesting
that by working "together in resolving" these issues, is he/she implying
that AMATEUR RADIO should tolerate this harmful interference? How is
he/she suggesting that AMATEUR RADIO should solve this problem?
In
any scenerio, if the service that is being interferred with - is, well...
being interferred with, then how does tech geek suggest the interference
should be handled? Should AMATEUR RADIO operators merely "apply a filter"
to THEIR antennae? If that is his suggestion, then that answer belies his
(mis)understanding of the problem and merely proves that tech geek is
really not a "Technology GeeK" at all, but is really a paid lobyist to
their cause and, therefore, has a strong pecuniary interest in such an
initiative.
I was wondering how tech geek finds the time to post so
many pro-BPL comments in this forum. I work 40+ hours a week too, but I
don't have the time to inundate this forum with MY comments on this issue.
An old phylosophy professor once told my class, "that if you can't dazzle
them with briliance, try to baffle them with BS." My feeling is that is
what might be happening here.
In the early days of the digital TV modulation debate
between COFDM and 8-VSB a similar thing happened. Significant intimidation
from members of Congress was ratalling the cages of broadcasters like ABC,
NBC who had lettered the FCC that they thought COFDM was the better way to
go.
When the DoD weighed in with an endorsement for COFDM for
national security reasons (homeland security) I thought that here was some
real weight for the COFDM side. Not so. The same Congressional delegation
visited the Pentagon and the DoD immediately retracted all with a letter
of apology.
Very dissapointing. We were part of a demonstration in
November of 2001 just after 9/11 at Ground Zero for the DoD and Fema. The
DoD was able to get an STA to use WNYE in New York for the demo. We did
the demo which consisted of three laptops receiving multiple video (TV)
programs on each while we drove around Ground Zero with perfect reception
using 3 to 15 " omni antennas.
While this demonstration was ongoing
a number of top police officials of the NYPD gathered at our office a few
blocks North of Ground Zero for their demonstraton.
The station,
WNYE, said that the STA only specified DoD and FEMA and that they would
have to call the FCC for permission to demonstrate to the waiting brass of
NYPD.
WNYE was told to turn off the transmitters immediately. NO
demo.
We had/have a plan that would have seen the installation of
COFDM conditional access receivers in all building on each floor, in
elevators, fire trucks, subway cars, police cars or just about everywhere.
Our plan would have seen the cost of HDTV receivers at ZERO or near Zero
as ealrly as Christmas 2000.
It is now 2004 and we have a MANDATE
that will force people who do not even need OTA receivers to buy them in
their ignorance.
I beleive that the Mandate specificaly relies on
the ignorance of the public to succeed. It cannot possibly be defended as
the FCC looking out for the best interest of the public.
The only
hope is that retailers in their quest for sales will do a good job of
notifying the public that they can buy monitors which have NO tuners in
them at all and thus avoid the unnecessay exspense.
The only
justification that I can see for the Mandate is to pretend that we are
having a successful DTV transition like they are actually having in Japan,
Australia, Berlin and the UK.
FEMA received a phone call from the
"Administration" and did an about face on the BPL issue. FEMA knows that
BPL interfers and is flawed technology. They said so in their Dec. 2003
letter to the FCC. However, the FEMA (appointed) manager retracted his
"career limiting statement" about the interference problems and will let
the investors of utilities who promote BPL learn the hard way.
The FEMA official said his agency
expects that there may be ways to provide BPL's benefits "without
compromising the emergency communications capabilities available to FEMA."
The January letter stands in stark contrast to FEMA's predictions
last December that "the introduction of unwanted interference from the
implementation of BPL technology into the high frequency radio spectrum
will result in significant detriment to the operation of FEMA radio
systems." Saying such interference could "directly impair the safety of
life and property," the agency also had recommended the FCC beef up its
Part 15 rules to ensure no increase in interference levels to existing FCC
or NTIA-licensed communication systems.
"The purported benefits of
BPL in terms of expanded services in certain communications sectors do not
appear to outweigh the benefit to the overall public of HF radio
capability as presently used by government, broadcasting and public safety
users," FEMA asserted last December in comments filed on the agency's
behalf by Chief Information Officer Barry C. West.
BPL also could
render such "essential communications services" as the Radio Amateur Civil
Emergency Service (RACES), the Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS) and
the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) useless, FEMA said. FEMA and ARRL are
signatories to a Memorandum of Understanding that focuses on how Amateur
Radio personnel may coordinate with the agency to support emergency
communications functions. FEMA's December comments also referenced ARRL's
"Interference to PLC systems from Amateur Radio Operation."
Brown's January letter conveys a much milder, conciliatory tone.
"We know that the FCC shares our appreciation for the importance of
reliable communications in the context of disaster recovery and are
confident that the Office of Engineering and Technology's technical
assessment, as well as the Commission's regulations implementing BPL, will
be sensitive to this issue," he concluded. "FEMA stands ready to assist in
any way the Commission might find helpful."
The deadline to file
comments in response to the FCC BPL NPRM is Monday, May 3. Reply comments
are due Tuesday, June 1. Interested individuals and organizations may file
comments via the Internet using the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). The FCC asks that anyone filing comments on this NPRM do so "only
in the newly established ET Docket No 04-37," the FCC said.
More strength in your stance
against VERIZON threat of lawsuit in your Nextel decision.
In
regards to FEMA on BPL......the current article i could find ON THE
INTERNET is this-->
RE: FEMA Appears to Backpedal in BPL
"Clarification" Letter
NEWINGTON, CT, Apr 1, 2004--After
expressing "grave concerns" to the FCC last fall about the interference
potential of Broadband over Power Line (BPL) systems, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) now appears to be backing away from
that strong stance. FEMA filed comments December 4 in response to the
FCC's April 2003 Notice of Inquiry in ET Docket 03-104. Many have cited
those remarks in their own comments opposing BPL deployment. In a January
8 letter that's now part of the BPL Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM)
in ET Docket 04-37, Michael D. Brown, the US Department of Homeland
Security's under secretary for emergency preparedness and response, told
FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell that FEMA wanted to "clarify the record" to
ensure that its filing was not "misunderstood or misconstrued."
"We have become aware that certain distinct approaches to BPL may
have the potential to cause interference to FEMA's high frequency radio
communications system," Brown said in his January letter. "However, we
continue to study the BPL proceeding and have not concluded that there is
a material interference problem or that all of the distinct technological
approaches to BPL pose a risk of interference."
The FEMA official
said his agency expects that there may be ways to provide BPL's benefits
"without compromising the emergency communications capabilities available
to FEMA."
This is in reply to T. Graves
or Microwave engineer re: "BPL COULD BE DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH"...
anxiety !!!
fyi: another article quoted from the web regarding
scientific studies wether HIGH VOLTAGE LINES causes huaman diseases or
cancer... i suppose as a microwave engineer, you ought to know all about
this !!!!.... THIS WILL RELIEVE HIS ANXIETY !!!
re: Background
Paper on "Power Line Fields and Public Health
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) an
arm of the United States Department of Homeland Security, has expressed to
the FCC -- in Written Comments, filed in Docket 03-104 on December 4, 2003
-- its concern that BPL can jeopardize national security, by causing
disruptive interference with both military communications and civilian
emergency communications.
Boeing Company "The NPRM (FCC Notice
of Proposed Rule Making) did not take into consideration the significant
risk that exists of harmful interference into aeronautical HF radio
systems and its serious potential consequences in terms of loss or
disruption of critical safety-of-life aeronautical
communications".
An IEEE Member W. Lee McVey of Florida a
Professional Engineer and a Senior Member of the INSTITUTE FOR ELECTRICAL
AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERS. Mr. McVey submitted the following statement,
regarding “disruption to commercial aviation communications.†Mr.
McVey stated - “Overseas contact with aircraft is all in HF (the High
Frequency range), and would be obliterated if BPL systems were to operate
near Stateside antenna locations. This has been stated in commentary to
[FCC Docket] 03-104. The FAA and and Aircraft Radio operate numerous
sites, and operate over many HF frequencies, to maintain constant contact
with aircraft. Talk about a compromise to safety …. !!â€
The
Disaster Emergency Response Association, Inc. (DERA) 1. The United
States risks a communications crisis of unprecedented proportions if the
FCC permits deployment of Access BPL systems without reducing Part 15
permitted emission levels by several orders of magnitude and greatly
strengthening interference protection requirements to safeguard licensed
operations and the public.
NORTH AMERICAN SHORTWAVE NASWA
represents the rights and interests of shortwave listeners, in the United
States and Canada, who choose to obtain information on international news
and other cultures directly from the source between 2 and 26 MHz, which
are allocated by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) but
would be affected by American-based BPL.
ShipCom "There is no
justification to unnecessarily risking the lives of mariners, passenger
and aircraft crews and rescue personal in the name of rushing for BPL
approval."
Verizon "BPL clearly has the potential to create
significant interference problems with telecommunications
services."
Again i found an older web
article that states, "INTERFERENCE TO HAM RADIO USERS IS NOT A PROBLEM
ANYMORE USING OFDM TECHNIQUES by BPL"... and also discussed here is the
NEW HI-SPEED INTERNET called IPV6, with synergy use of BPL !!!!
Earlier PLC systems such as the
one developed by Nor.Web in the UK emitted a high level of radio noise in
the 1-30 MHz bandwidth. This resulted in conflicts with the British
government's Radio Agency, when it disrupted radio signals from the BBC
World Service. The Department of Trade and Industry (UK) subsequently made
it impossible to use PLC in the UK and contributed to the withdrawal of
Nor.Web from the business.
Learning from the failures of Nor.Web
approach, second generation PLC technologies are using techniques like
OFDM, which substantially reduce the potential of interference to radio
users, thanks to a decrease in transmitted power spectral density. The
OFDM modulation spreads the signal over a very wide bandwidth, thus
reducing the amount on power injected at a single frequency. Field trials
of PLC technologies carried out during the last 2 years in Europe (Spain,
Italy, Germany), North America, South America (Chile, Brazil) and Asia
(Singapore) have shown that interference with radio users is no longer a
problem for PLC.
The same technique explains why current PLC
technology does not affect other appliances in the home. In fact, vendors
like LG and Samsung released several products for home automation, using
PLC.
Synergy with IPv6 Firstly, IPv6 provides a set of
autoconfiguration mechanisms for routers and hosts, so that even today it
is possible to simply "plug and play" on a home network.
In
addition, IPv6 will ease rapid deployment of PLC networks, as new
protocols like router zero-configuration and automatic prefix delegation
become available and are implemented. ADSL networks taking full advantage
of these IPv6 facilities have already verified them, and it is expected
that other broadband technologies will do so as well.
Clearly, the
almost unlimited address space of IPv6 is needed to provide end-to-end
connectivity and allow new applications and services to work in a
transparent manner across PLC networks at massive scale (imagine every
power socket in Beijing or Mumbai becoming an Internet access
point!).
Current communications regulations might
underestimate the radio interference from systems that push broadband data
services over electrical power lines, a Commerce Department study has
found.
The report, released this week by the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, did not recommend any
changes in Federal Communications Commission regulations but suggested
some techniques for minimizing the interference.
The emerging
technology, known as e-broadband or broadband over power lines, transmits
data at radio frequencies over electrical lines, using electrical outlets
as data ports. In other words, users’ existing indoor wiring does the
networking.
NTIA conducted its study of interference following a
2003 request for information from the FCC.
The study focused on
the possible impact of e-broadband on radios operating between 1.7 MHz and
80 MHz, the spectrum where federal agencies have been assigned more than
59,000 frequencies. NTIA used computer modeling to predict the amount of
RF radiation from the broadband devices that inject the signal into the
power lines as well as from the power lines themselves.
NTIA found
that mobile land radios receiving moderate to strong signals could
experience interference up to 30 meters from a broadband device or power
lines carrying the broadband signal. Receivers on boats could receive
interference up to 55 meters away, and base stations up to 230 meters.
Those distances would increase if the radio signals were weaker.
Aircraft flying below 20,000 feet could also experience
interference within 8 miles of a deployment area.
“NTIA
recommends that the FCC not relax field strength limits for broadband over
power line systems and that measurement procedures be refined and
clarified,†the report concluded.
Power
lines set to carry high-speed Internet By Brad Rosenberg | Contributor
to The Christian Science Monitor
Power lines bring energy to homes
all across America, but soon they could carry high-speed Internet service
as well. On June 1, federal proposed rules for Broadband over Power Lines
(BPL) go into effect. At that point, power companies can sell broadband
services over power lines in every market in the United States.
Several power companies from North Carolina to California have
already launched trial programs in the past year, providing Internet
service to customers through modems plugged into their electrical outlets.
The companies are charging roughly $30 to $40 per month, a bit less than
or equal to high-speed service from telephone and cable
companies.
But ham-radio operators are deeply worried about the
technology, arguing BPL causes enough radio interference to block out
radio frequencies of fire and police departments, and other emergency
services. "It's like listening to a symphony next to a jackhammer,"
complains Jim Micholis, a Wayne, Pa., ham radio operator who has witnessed
several BPL tests.
Overseas, BPL tests were halted because of
interference, they point out.
A new technical report, due to be
released in a few weeks, will address the interference issue, insiders
say, and offer evidence for both sides of the debate.
Most electronic devices create radio
disturbance in some way, from fluorescent lights to cable Internet. But
BPL stands out because it uses unshielded power lines to carry the
Internet signal, says Jim Haynie, president of the American Radio Relay
League. "In each and every instance where we have gone to the test sites
and done our measurements and used our instruments, we have found that
[BPL] will interfere ... to the point where we can't hear
anything."
The Federal Communications Commission disputes that
contention. It requested and got feedback from the radio league, and
drafted BPL rules to meet its complaints.
"Our responsibility is to
make sure that ... when some new use of the radio spectrum occurs, it
doesn't create interference, and we have," says Ed Thomas, chief engineer
for the FCC. Mr. Thomas maintains that the commission has yet to find any
evidence of BPL interfering with nearby radios. "I'm willing to bet that
there won't be a problem, and that [BPL] will be used ubiquitously," he
says.
Proponents expect BPL to be a cheaper alternative for
consumers who have relied on cable and telephone companies for high-speed
Internet service.
"The BPL component is probably going to be a
low-cost competitor in any market," says Allen Shark, president and CEO of
the Power Lines Communications Association. "The prices that we're
starting to see are less than $30 a month."
"The BPL component is probably
going to be a low-cost competitor in any market," says Allen Shark,
president and CEO of the Power Lines Communications Association. "The
prices that we're starting to see are less than $30 a
month."
Another advantage power companies expect to have over its
rivals: BPL will provide Internet service to areas where cable companies
do not operate.
"Most rural areas have been underserved by rural
providers," says Alex Pardo, director of Cinergy Ventures, a subdivision
of the Cincinnati utility company Cinergy Corp. "Wherever there's a power
line, [BPL] has the potential to get a data service to go to areas that
have been underserved."
BPL will also encourage innovative
technology, proponents say. "If every power plug in your house becomes a
broadband connection, that means that almost anything you plug into the
wall can connect to the Internet," says Thomas of the FCC. "That means
that your refrigerator can have a meaningful conversation with the
supermarket and say, 'Hi, I need milk.' Or you could call your house and
say, 'I'm coming home in two hours, turn the air conditioner on.' It's
only restricted by imagination."
So far, ham operators have few
allies - publicly, at least - to help them keep the FCC rules from going
into effect. One reason is that, while police and other emergency-services
could be affected, they have not tested it.
"We would be concerned
if it did interfere with our communications, because those are critical,
and involve lifesaving situations," says Steve Cohler, spokesman for the
California Highway Patrol. But while the organization "is aware of BPL,"
it does not know "the impact it would have on [its] communications
capabilities."
The Federal Emergency Management Administration is
also looking into BPL, but it has not yet come to a definite conclusion,
says spokeswoman LeaAnne McBride.
Other nations, however, have
already made up their mind.
Other nations, however, have already made up
their mind.
"It's a brilliant idea, but if you give it a more
technical, detailed look, it all falls apart," says Diethard Hansen, the
external chairman of the advisory group on BPL to RegTP, Germany's FCC
equivalent. "It suffers the enormous risk of uncontrolled interference to
everyone."
During test trials of BPL in Britain and Japan, Mr.
Hansen says, interference was so strong that they pulled the plug on
BPL.
"In Manchester [England], they failed miserably in the
shortwave frequency bands because the streetlights started working as
antennas," he says. "In Japan, they had limited field trials in Osaka and
Tokyo, and interference got out of control. They had to stop it."
Ham-radio operators are concerned that BPL will cause the same problems in
the US.
But proponents don't seem worried. "What was banned in
Japan is very old technology," says Thomas.
In addition, Mr. Shark
says that BPL didn't work in Europe because of an electrical grid that
uses more voltage - and a political system overly influenced by would-be
BPL competitors. "We can't learn as much from them."
Within a few
weeks, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) is expected to issue its report on the feasibility of BPL in the
US. Critics charge that the FCC should have waited for the report before
issuing its rules, and some even suggest that the White House pressured
the agency to push forward the job- creating technology.
But such
pressure is not necessarily bad, says Mike Gallagher, acting assistant
secretary of commerce for communication and information at the NTIA. "It's
our goal to create jobs and to create technology that can operate without
interference. We can do both. There is pressure to do both because that's
good management." =====================
BPL - History of a Failed Legacy
Technology: from BPL Due Diligence - Ambient Technologies Message Board
Website: http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=ABTG&read=17217
on July 3, 2004 View comments about this article! BPL - History of
a Failed Legacy Technology
First a little history (those that
ignore history get to repeat the mistakes).
BPL (AKA PLC/PLT/DPL)
is a tired old legacy technology that has struggled with interference
issues since it was first rolled out in Manchester, England in 1997 (one
year before the introduction of DSL to Europe). Nortel designed the
system. The UK authorities tolerated the interference for a time but when
the emergency services traced interference to BPL it was shut down.
Development moved to Germany, Nortel struggled on and eventually
decided that the interference issues could not be resolved. Siemens then
took up the lead, after several thousand customers had been connected up,
Siemens came to the same conclusion as Nortel and exited the business. The
next company to enter the business was Ascom based in Switzerland. Then an
Israeli company called Mainnet entered the BPL market using chips from a
Spanish company called DS2.
Tests were made in Japan and the
authorities banned BPL due to the interference problems. Next Finland shut
down their BPL system due to interference problems.
By 2003 there
were 7,000 users in Europe with a multitude of test sites, all small
scale. BPL customer growth was stagnant.
The U.S. was never
considered a market for BPL because of the architecture of the electrical
distribution system. In most of Northern Europe electrical distribution is
underground with about 200~300 houses for each transformer. In the U.S.
much of the electrical distribution is overhead with up to 6 houses
sharing a transformer.
In what can only be described as a
desperate last ditch attempt to sell product and survive, the BPL industry
created a "phantom" product that answered the FCC's need for rural
broadband. The myth was propagated that BPL was the answer to rural
broadband deployment. The FCC commissioners bought the story, the press
talked about Internet at every socket.
The reality is that of all
the Internet distribution technologies BPL is the least suited to go any
distance. Every 2,000 feet an expensive repeater in needed to boost the
signals.
2:48
PM PDT Wednesday Power lines may be broadband's future, says FCC
chair Timothy Roberts
Federal Communications Commission Chairman
Michael Powell said electric power lines may some day make broadband
Internet service available universally.
Powell made the statement
at AT&T's Menlo Park Lab on Wednesday, where he was joined by
California Public Utilities Commissioner Susan Kennedy and Pacific Gas and
Electric Co. President and Chief Executive Officer Gordon Smith for a
demonstration of the technology under development by AT&T.
The
Willow neighborhood of Menlo Park will be the site of the first test of
the product, which AT&T hopes to make generally available in three to
five years, said Hossein Eslambolchi, AT&T's chief technology officer
and chief information officer.
Internet over power lines would
provide a third method on top of DSL and cable.
"This is something
we want to see happen," Powell said.
"This is something we want to see
happen," Powell said.
Powell, who has championed competition in
his tenure at the FCC, said government regulators need to stay out of the
way of the new technology.
AT&T proposes using existing power
lines to transmit digital packets carrying Internet services, allowing
customers to surf the Internet, send e-mail, download video and make phone
calls. Under one scenario the Internet signal would be transmitted around
neighborhoods by wireless fidelity (wi-fi) signal. Eslambolchi said the
signal would be as fast as 54 megabytes a second, more than 10 times
faster than typical cable or DSL signals.
The service also would
allow the electric company to receive information on the status of its
lines. It would allow troubleshooters to see instantly if a line or a
transformer is out. It also would allow power companies to meter customer
power use in real time, making it easier to provide conservation
incentives.
"The best approach for energy demand in the future is
going to be conservation," said Smith. "The sooner this technology is
deployed the better."
In comments to reporters, Powell also said
the FCC is working hard to come up with interim rules for the sharing of
phone lines by local so-called baby Bells. A recent court ruling struck
down the FCC's rules that required the former Bells to share those lines
with competitors for local phone service at low rates. He said he expects
the FCC to come up with new rules to meet the court's requirements by the
end of the year. = More power Mr. Chairman !!!
FACTS ABOUT BPL AND EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
INTERFERENCE.
Emergency communications operates often where there
are no cell sites or traditional form of communications and uses the
frequency spectrum where BPL plans to be.
BPL's greedy form of
spectrum usage in fact uses all of the channels, dumping it's signal on
top of the many other current users of those frequencies thus INTERFERING
with them.
Many of the emergency communication stations are manned
by amateur radio operators during floods, tornadoes, hurricanes,
earthquakes, brush & forest fires, marine & aviation search and
rescue, Red Cross efforts in other countries often coordinated from the
USA and many others. BPL interference will be devastating to that
communication.
Amateur radio operators often are employed in the
electronics industry and utilize up to date technology in their "ham
gear". Most newer "ham" equipment utilizes microprocessor controlled,
solid state, surface mount design with digital signal processing. Tubes
are used in many amateur high power RF amplifiers just are they are
currently employed in commercial AM & FM radio and TV station
transmitters.
Even this very sophisticated amateur radio equipment
will be interfered with by BPL signals radiating beyond the power
lines.
Fiber optics do not interfer and have much greater
bandwidths (speed) than any BPL promoters best "wet dream". (Listen up
"tech geek") Do not allow this FLAWED BPL TECHNOLOGY.
As BPL technology matures,
more advancements in specific areas also. Just as, in the news release in
Tokyo,Japan news website, testing of the newest 200 mbps BPL chipset for
electro-magnetic leakage suppression had started: http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=7823
Remember this is the newest 200 mbps BPL modem not the OLDER 54mbps BPL
modem... hoping to hear the result of their test and we also remember your
FCC ZERO-INTERFERENCE CHAMBER... to once and for all, testing if BPL
really interferes with other frequencies or BPL is being interfered by
nearby higher frequencies signals.
Why is it that, amateur radio
operators cannot improve their technology so that it will be not a fragile
band. Are they still using the old VACUUM TUBES or UNSIGHTLY TALLEST
ANTENNA in the neighborhood ?
We hope AMATEUR RADIO and BPL
Computer engineers will work together in resolving each
issues.
We`re glad that FCC gave NEXTEL its own spectrum to use
that will not INTERFERE WITH EMERGENCY SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS, and also
could EVERYONE could benefit from NEXTEL`s new technology for emergency
calls around the country. (not spamming here but this news is all over the
web)
We support new technology that could MERGE the areas of
technology into one access, like INTERNET, DATA, HDTV, VOIP etc. This
means more jobs created and competitions abound. In the end CONSUMERS like
you and I, benefits the cheaper broadband w/ hi-bandwidth access
!!!
Medical studies must be done prior to BPL
deployment. "Uncontrolled Radio Wave Danger"
Project Pandora The
U.S. government woke up to the reality of psychotronics when from 1960 to
1965 the American Embassy in Moscow was targeted by a mixture of
electromagnetic and microwaves causing a wide range of physical and mental
illness among U.S. personel serving there, including the eventual death of
the U.S. Ambassador. Dr Stephen Possony, one time Science Advisor to the
Department of Defense, now retired, said: 'After the death of our
ambassador in Moscow, due to contracting leukaemia, and a couple of other
employees, it suddenly dawned on us to have a real careful look at what
was happening there.'
A huge project got underway. involving the
CIA, Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA), the State Department, the
Navy and the Army. They were tasked to study the effects of the emitted
Soviet microwaves on animals and humans. The electromagnetic signals,
which each day targeted the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. These signals in the
short 'S' and long 'L' spectrum had complex modulations with a pattern of
variations, some of which were random. A Top Secret-Eyes Only memorandum,
dated 20 December 1966 from ARPA shows the significance of this project.
In April 1976 the Secretary of State Henry Kissinger sent the
following telegram to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow which summarised the
conclusions of the study of the Moscow signal.
Subject: Radiation
and UHF and Electromagnetic Dangers 1. On April 6 AFSA president John
Hemenway submitted the following report to AFSA's governing
board: 'Beginning in 1960 the Soviet Union directed the high frequency
beams of radiation at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow which were calculated not
to pick up intelligence but cause physiological effects on personnel. The
effects the Soviets calculated to achieve in the personnel serving (at
least as early as 1960) included (A) Malaise (B) Irritability, (C) Extreme
fatigue. At this time the Soviets believed that the induced effects were
temporary. Subsequently, it has been verified that the effects are not
temporary. Definitely tied to such radiation and the UHF/VHF
electromagnetic waves are: (A) Cataracts, (B) Blood changes that induce
heart attacks, (C) Malignancies, (D) Circulatory problems, and (E)
Permanent deterioration of the nervous system. In most cases the
after-effects do not become evident until long after exposure - a decade
or more.
We are glad to learn of your
support and enthusiasts in your goal of making AMERICA the number one in
the world in high-speed broadband communications and technology... thus
improving the speed of business and information superhighway as well as
security to our POWER GRID.
We`re glad to read and learn from your
stance on BPL and from other members of the FCC
!!!
BPL does face intense opposition, particularly from
the American Radio Relay League, which represents 163,000 shortwave radio,
or ham radio, operators. The technology could disrupt shortwave radio as
well as the high-frequency transmissions used for national security,
emergency response and an array of other applications, according to BPL
detractors.
Yet PPL Corp, wary of tipping its hand to competitors
and reluctant to draw attention to an UNPROVEN TECHNOLOGY, is hush-hush on
the subject. It hardly publicizes its efforts, offers no indication of
when to expect a full-scale, region-wide rollout and never discloses
financial details.
''We've been down this road so many times,''
David Schanzer, an analyst with Janney Montgomery Scott in Philadelphia,
said, referring to THE HYPE THAT HAS SO OFTEN PRECEDED UNPROFITABLE
TECHNOLOGIES. ''They have learned the hard way."
A third, so-called marketing
trial, where the service was offered to residential customers for a base
price of about $40 a month, began in Hanover Township, Northampton County,
last fall. Two more, in Upper Macungie Township and Bethlehem, followed
this spring.
Along the way, PPL has experimented with various
methods. In earlier efforts, such as in Emmaus, customers connected to the
Internet by plugging into a power outlet; the electrical cord doubled as a
conduit for the Internet signal. In the latest trials, the Internet signal
comes from an antenna attached to a medium-voltage power line outside,
which is capable of serving multiple homes in the vicinity.
At the
Crowne Plaza, a guest connects the computer to the Internet through a
modem that is plugged into a power outlet. Data is transmitted over the
hotel's electrical wiring to and from an antenna on the roof, which
communicates directly with PPL's own fiber optic network.
Its long-term viability,
however, is still an issue. ''Can you make it work for a low enough cost
for the prices you can charge in the market today?'' asked Robert Olsen, a
professor of electrical engineering at Washington State University in
Pullman, Wash. ''That's the real question.''
About a dozen electric
utilities nationwide are experimenting with BPL. One, Cinergy Corp. of
Cincinnati, Ohio, plans on bringing the service to 55,000 customers by the
end of the year. PPL, with five trials in the Lehigh Valley so far, is
somewhere at the head of the pack.
Yet the company, wary of tipping
its hand to competitors and reluctant to draw attention to an unproven
technology, is hush-hush on the subject. It hardly publicizes its efforts,
offers no indication of when to expect a full-scale, region-wide rollout
and never discloses financial details.
Such reticence is
well-advised, according to analysts. ''We've been down this road so many
times,'' David Schanzer, an analyst with Janney Montgomery Scott in
Philadelphia, said, referring to the hype that has so often preceded
unprofitable technologies. ''They have learned the hard way.''
BPL
does face intense opposition, particularly from the American Radio Relay
League, which represents 163,000 shortwave radio, or ham radio, operators.
The technology could disrupt shortwave radio as well as the high-frequency
transmissions used for national security, emergency response and an array
of other applications, according to BPL detractors.
The Federal
Communication Commission, which regulates the airwaves, has suggested such
problems can be resolved by technical solutions — a position shared by
PPL.
BPL compares well to the alternatives, both in terms of
performance and price. It costs about the same as the typical cable modem
and DSL from telephone companies, and is about as fast.
PPL's first
two trials started about a year ago in Whitehall Township and Emmaus,
where the service was introduced to customers free while the company
worked out kinks in the technology.
A third, so-called marketing
trial, where the service was offered to residential customers for a base
price of about $40 a month, began in Hanover Township, Northampton County,
last fall. Two more, in Upper Macungie Township and Bethlehem, followed
this spring.
Again more power to
you. Another Commercial BPL ROLLOUT news on the internet pops out. I guess
a national acceptance is just a tip the iceberg. If there`s a voting for
BPL support, i guess majority would like to have it because DSL, CABLE,
TV, SATELLITE subscription are very expensive nowadays. Not spamming
fyi.
The
Internet from an outlet PPL's broadband over power lines takes hotel
into the online future.
By Sam Kennedy Of The Morning
Call July 17, 2004
The use of electrical wires for
high-speed Internet access at a downtown Allentown hotel is a milestone
not only for PPL Corp., but also for the futuristic technology the
Allentown company is pioneering.
The Crowne Plaza hotel on Hamilton
Street this week unveiled its new broadband over power lines service, or
BPL.
The hotel is the utility's first paying commercial customer of
BPL, and perhaps the biggest commercial customer of the technology
nationwide. All 225 guest rooms and public areas in the building have been
equipped.
It's a business model PPL will soon apply to other hotels
and apartment complexes throughout the Lehigh Valley, according to a
spokesman for the company.
Such plans signal PPL's growing
confidence in a potentially revolutionary technology. BPL — or power
line communications, as it's also called — holds the promise of becoming
the next major Internet pipeline into homes and businesses, and of
fulfilling predictions of widespread adoption of high-speed Internet
service.
It could bring fast Internet service for the first time to
many computer users, particularly those in rural locations who now cannot
take full advantage of the Web's offerings. At the same time, it could
spur competition among existing Internet service providers, such as cable
and telephone companies, leading to cheaper prices and better service for
all consumers.
The technology has come a long way in a relatively
short time, according to experts. Steve Hadden, vice president of electric
utility consulting firm Plexis Research, located outside of Boston,
described the progress in recent years as
''mind-boggling.''
The Japan Amateur Radio League
(JARL) is cautiously watching new developments concerning the
commercialization of Power Line Communications (PLC), while continuing to
carry out joint experiments with a high speed power line communication
promoters' alliance to reduce potential interference to radio
communications.
PLC is known as broadband over power line (BPL) in
some parts of the world. The Japanese Ministry of Public Management, Home
Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications (MPHPT) two years ago inaugurated
the Power Line Communications Study Group. JARL became a member of its
working group of field tests and took part in various demonstration tests.
Among the members of the working group were NHK (Japan Broadcasting
Corporation) and a sub-committee on Radio Astronomy Frequencies, as these
organizations' activities are deeply related to HF bands. The Ministry's
Study Group announced the following conclusion in August 2002:
"In
the light of modems under development and the current situation over power
lines, it is likely that power line communications equipment will become a
source of harmful interference with radio communications including air
traffic control and short-wave broadcasting, making it difficult to expand
frequency ranges for use. In view of possible future development of
technology designed to reduce leaked electric field strength in modems for
PLC and power lines, it is necessary to continue research and development.
Therefore, a system should be established to permit the construction and
use of equipment for research and development, or demonstration
tests."
Japan’s largest power
utility, Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), had long conducted R&D on
PLC but gave up in the late 1990s after failing to overcome the
electromagnetic radiation leakage and radio interference problems. Kyushu
Electric Power Co has been the most aggressive utility promoting PLC and
its research in Japan.
Recent developments such as the ability to
put “notches†on frequencies and the use of technologies such as
orthogonal frequency division multiplexing and wavelet technologies have
arguably overcome these problems. However, PLC is still fanatically
resisted, especially by ham radio operators who are using similar
frequencies.
The trials are being conducted by TEPCO, Kyushu
Electric Power Co, Mitsubishi Electric, Matsushita Electric Industrial Co,
LineCom and Preminet.
Both Matsushita and Mitsubishi Electric have
been focusing strongly on PLC products. Matsushita announced in January
that it had developed the world’s first home-networking PLC technology
capable of delivering broadband. It hopes to introduce PLC adaptors for
office and home use by the end of 2004.
Does high-speed PLC
threaten the future of ADSL and FTTH carriers? That was the dream of
researchers at power utilities. However, it seems that high-speed PLC
still has too many major barriers to overcome before it can be considered
a threat.
"We believe the big opportunity in Japan for high-speed
PLC will be in distribution of Internet inside buildings," said Avner
Matnor, president of ITRAN Communications, an Israeli company that has set
up high-speed PLC joint ventures with two Japanese companies. ITRAN also
supplies low-speed PLC technology and chips to Japan.
Low-speed PLC
at up to 450 kHz has been permitted in Japan for about ten years but
hasn’t proved popular. Its main use to date is
telemetering.
Once again, this is not
a spam. This is another web news regarding JAPAN`s Ministry of Public
Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications modifying its
regulatory ordinances in January to permit high-speed power-line
communications (PLC) experiments !!!!... remember the older web article in
JAPAN using newest 200 mbps PLC modem also !!!
Nine high-speed
Internet trials have recently started in Japan using power lines for
transmission at between 2 MHz and 30 MHz. The trials will finish at the
end of March 2005 and are likely to lead to the Ministry of Public
Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications (MPHPT) permitting
commercial services as early as 2006.
The move comes after the
MPHPT modified its regulatory ordinances in January to permit high-speed
power-line communications (PLC) experiments following a study released
last August that concluded that “it is likely that power-line
communications equipment will become a source of harmful interference with
radio communications including air traffic control and short-wave
broadcasting.â€
The main purpose of the trials, which include both
in-building and outdoor access systems, is simply to demonstrate that the
radio interference problems have been solved.
Sataoshi Kobayashi,
managing director of the Association of Radio Industries and Businesses,
expects the in-building trials to be successful and services permitted,
but says there are doubts whether the outdoor access system trials would
be successful.
High-speed and low-speed PLC, or broadband over
power lines, in Japan as well as Korea is lagging behind Europe and the US
partly due to the regulatory issues.
Japan’s largest power
utility, Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), had long conducted R&D on
PLC but gave up in the late 1990s after failing to overcome the
electromagnetic radiation leakage and radio interference problems. Kyushu
Electric Power Co has been the most aggressive utility promoting PLC and
its research in Japan.
Again, this is not a
spam, but another web article praising SOUTH kOREA`s broadband success and
SINGAPORE`s desire for BPL or BROADBAND over Powerlines especially for the
rural areas!!!!
Broadband
data over powerlines comes closer Dan Warne | 2002-Mar-20, 11:15 am |
Pacific Internet revealed this week that its parent company in
Singapore is trialling broadband data over power lines. Commercial rollout
in Singapore is tipped for the end of next year.
The group's CEO,
Mr Tan Tong Hai, compared Singapore and Korea's diversity of broadband
access methods to Australia's reliance on Telstra as the only viable
broadband wholesaler.
In Singapore, Pacific Internet is one of two
ISPs trialling the technology in conjunction with Singapore Power.
The Singapore trial is currently sustaining connection speeds of
2.2mbit -- faster than Telstra ADSL. Elsewhere in the world, power lines
are running at 4.5mbit, and ultimately the technology supports speeds of
up to 10 Mbit.
Broadband over powerlines has been regarded as the
"holy grail" by many because it gets around the biggest challenge to
broadband providers -- building cable infrastructure. Although there are
many engineering challenges in providing broadband over power lines, the
infrastructure is already built in most countries -- including good
penetration into rural areas.
Broadband over power lines does not
even need cables to be installed in the house -- the user simply plugs an
adaptor into any mains power socket in the house and is able to connect.
More affordable broadband internet (though not necessarily over power
lines at this stage) will be the key to increased takeup in Australian
market, said Mr Tan.
"My view is that access has to be
fundamentally brought to a level where we feel that is affordable for
average citizens before we push content," he said.
In Australia,
Telstra was still the only viable option for resellers providing broadband
internet to home and small office users, he said.
Once
affordability was addressed, content would then become an issue. Mr Tan
said broadband in South Korea was far more successful than Australia
because of lack of regulation of content, and the fact that it was locally
stored, reducing expensive international data transfer
charges.
The root
of the disagreements regarding BPL comes from the fact that there are two
ideologies of thought regarding this issue: The individuals who will be
effected (either negatively or positively) by BPL. It is important to
understand both perspectives.
Proponents see BPL as a long overdue
"breakthrough" in Internet or voice over-power-lines communication. They
view BPL as very beneficial technology that has minimal flaws. Their
technical experience with it is either non-existant or they have a strong
percunary interest in it. Since they or their agent will (probably) never
be adversly effected by its potential interference personally, and because
they do not require an "interference-free" over-the-air environment, they
see nothing wrong with advancing this technology as quickly as possible.
They beleive that any existing flaws (if found) can be easily remedied by
"notching out" interference sites as they as they become apparent (so they
are told), and any continuing annoying interference can be ameliorated by
simply modifying the minimal interference emmissions standards permitted
in the FCC Part 15 rules.
Opponents view it as a old "resurrected"
technology that (in every college electronics engineering class) had
demonstrated to cause interferrence due to the very nature of "open wire"
technology. They further beleive that the interference potential in the
shortwave spectrum (which BPL employs) is quite high due to the very
nature of that part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Furthermore, many
forms of shortwave communication employ "relatively" lower powered
shortwave transmissions. They further state that they have documented
evidence that signal "leakage" from BPL has the potential to travel great
distances via the ionospheric effect and cause large scale interference
thousands of miles from the transmitter/receiver sites. It has been
demonstrated that several attempted "notching" in various experiments had
been unsuccessul. They also beleive that no amount of legislation or
"softening" of FCC Part 15 will correct this interference
potential.
First and foremost , this is
not spamming this blog. I found another INTERESTING article on the web
regarding SOUTH KOREA`s plan to ease regulation on BPL !!!!!
SEOUL - The South
Korean government plans to ease regulations restricting high-speed
Internet access through power lines, allowing customers to surf the Web by
plugging a computer modem into conventional electrical outlets, a ministry
said on Friday.
The Ministry of Information and Communication said
in August it will submit a bill to let operators offer commercial
broadband Internet services via power lines without the ministry's prior
approval.
The bill requires parliamentary approval and is expected
to become effective beginning in October, the ministry said.
So
far, would-be service providers have been obliged to get the ministry's
approval to use the power line communication service because of concerns
over possible interference with radio waves.
The idea of broadband
Internet access over power lines is not new, but it has gained little
customer acceptance because of the regulatory hurdle, according to the
ministry.
The move is part of the government's effort to
"digitalize" 10 million households by the end of 2007.
"The
deregulation is aimed at boosting home-networking businesses in the
country," a ministry official said.
The Korea Electric Research
Institute is poised to develop a power-line broadband Internet technology
by the end of September, which promises to send data at a speed of 54
megabits per second, nearly 10 times faster than existing broadband
Internet services.
South Korea leads the world in per capita
broadband Internet access.
About 73% of the nation's 48 million
people have access to the Internet, with 11.3 million having high-speed,
always-on connections.
I`m very glad to read
articles on the we regarding your enthusiast to promote broadband internet
and voice access to underserved rural areas of the country.
By Eve Mitchell, BUSINESS
WRITER Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 7:09:08 AM PST
MENLO PARK:
MICHAEL Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, made a
phone call Wednesday. But it wasn't just any call. He made it using a
broadband connection carried over power lines -- a technology being
developed by AT&T that also provides a high-speed Internet connection
over power lines. "It's amazing," said Powell after calling his office
using a special wireless fidelity, or Wi-Fi, phone during a demonstration
of the emerging technology at AT&T Labs here. "I wish the technology
would get rid of my 40 voicemails."
--------------------------------------------
God bless and more
power to you and your staff !!!!
To those of you reading, "TECH GEEK" is a shill for
the power industry and will benefit financially from BPL. He is part of
the publicity machine that millions of dollars are buying to promote this
ill advised technology. Be aware, be advised and think for your
self.
Thanks for your support of
broadband alternatives like BPL. This article below is taken from a
Texas News website: Austin Business Journal - July 15, 2004
Blanco-based
Broadband Horizons has launched broadband over power lines in Blanco,
Burnet and Weimar, making it the first company in Texas to offer the new
technology.
Pilot projects were launched in mid-June in those
three cities, and Broadband Horizons now plans to bring BPL to more than
50 other communities in Texas and other states over the next several
years.
According to Brenda Thompson, a spokeswoman for the
company, the company does not intend to bring its service to Austin for
now.
"There are no plans to be in Austin yet. The entry strategy
has been to bring it to smaller, more rural communities," she says. "But
they're working on getting funding for an expansion, and it's growing very
quickly."
BPL technology is similar to other types of broadband
Internet access, except BPL connects over existing power lines. Users can
plug a small modem into any electrical outlet and a computer into the
modem to get an online connection.
A pricing plan for the service
has not been released.
Texas Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay,
who is also the chairman of the Texas Senate Committee on Business and
Commerce, says he thinks the BPL service can benefit many Texas cities and
counties.
"Providing affordable, reliable wireless broadband
service over power lines is a promising new technology," he says. "It is
especially important to the under-served areas of rural Texas, where
high-speed Internet service is not readily available."
Texas is
now one of several states that have implemented the new technology. Others
include Virginia, Indiana and Kentucky.
As both an employee of a large
telco (read: one which existed before 1984) and a consumer, I have read
these comments with interest, because your regulations affect me dually,
at work and at home. Yet I don't see enough comment on what I see as the
most promising technology: FTTH (Fiber to the Home). At its best, copper
wires cannot match the capacity of fiber.
Why has no one build FTTH
infrastructure? Simply put, the costs. The existing telco infrastructure
was largely built under a protected monopoly. The interstate highway
system would never have been built if it depended on private corporate
financing. Today, some communities are creating their own fiber networks,
at large expense, replacing current carriers. Yet what will be available
for the rural or economically disadvantaged areas? We need only look at
the rural electrification program to see how such a program could
work.
Imagine a network provided to any service provider to carry
content such as voice, data, and/or video to every household, at a
reasonable cost. Only a business which was guaranteed revenue would be
willing to invest in such a network. (Consider the Postal Service to see
how such an entity might operate.) Content providers could send data and
services to a home network, which could use either wireless or LAN
networks inside the home.
The problem is not the technology - the
problem is the business case. It's simply not there. That's why
governments exist - to provide for the common good. Our country deserves
more than a random winner of competing technologies. We need to embrace
the best technology available - the benefits to both consumers and
businesses will be enormous, long-lasting and worth the cost in the long
run.
I don`t want to give anyone
here with false hope but this unverified article give us a little light on
improving NO-INTERFERENCE BPL technology from SPAIN. This is not a spam,
and again i would like to make sure i have the source of this news article
!!!!
"In
the American economy, competition drives the economy and the velocity of
money turnover," he said. "I plan to create a competitive environment to
drive revenue back into the municipality." Colhoun asked whether the
city could compete with other service providers. "Yes, it will cost
much less for services," Fowler said.
He said the BPL technology
he recommends was developed in Spain and does not cause interference with
short-wave radio users such as emergency service providers, police and
fire and ham radios.
Fowler said he would serve as the project
manager for the study. "You, in the end, own the service," he
said. City employees would be trained to install and maintain the
equipment and lines, he said. "
Cedar Rapids already has
established broadband providers. Hinz said the Alliant system was a
test-stand operation that never reached the point of signing up any real
customers, and its technology was "fixed in time." Other companies have
gone beyond what Alliant was able to accomplish in Cedar Rapids, he
asserted, and plan to move ahead with BPL. He hinted that Alliant might
want to take another look at BPL once the FCC has put BPL rules and
regulations into place, and the technology has further evolved.
Spencer and Hinz agree that the BPL situation was resolved without
any rancor. Still outstanding are some chronic power line noise problems
Spencer has experienced. "There's been ongoing dialogue," Hinz said "He
helps keep our lines pretty clear up there."
The ARRL's formal
complaint to FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief David H. Solomon called on the
Commission not only to close down Alliant's BPL field trial system but to
fine the utility $10,000 for violating the Communications Act of 1934 and
FCC Part 15 rules. In late May, ARRL Midwest Division Director Wade
Walstrom, W0EJ, also called on Alliant Energy to shut down its BPL system
"without delay" and not resume operation until "any and all interference
issues have been fully resolved."
The ARRL became involved in
Spencer's case after United Power Line Council President William R.
Moroney invited the League in mid-March to keep his organization in the
loop on any cases of BPL interference that were not being satisfactorily
addressed.
For additional information, visit the "Broadband Over
Power Line (BPL) and Amateur Radio" page on the ARRL Web site. To support
the League's efforts in this area, visit the ARRL's secure BPL Web site.
According to Spencer, five
fixed Amateur Radio stations within proximity of the BPL evaluation system
and two mobile stations formally reported BPL interference on HF. "The
radio amateurs and Alliant Energy cooperated by sharing interference
information," he said. "Alliant Energy turned the BPL evaluation system
off twice to allow collection of extensive BPL frequency and signal level
data--with and without BPL." He said Alliant and Amperion tried various
"notching" schemes to rid amateur frequencies of the BPL interference with
only limited success. The system included both overhead and underground
BPL links to feed 2.4 GHz wireless "hot spots" for end user access..
Hinz said the area's topography presented some challenges,
especially with the system's wireless links. In hindsight, he suggested,
Cedar Rapids might have not have been the best place to test BPL. "I think
in the end, we actually over-challenged ourselves with this specific pilot
location." Despite "substantial progress" in interference mitigation, Hinz
said, Alliant decided at this point that "it wasn't worth the extra
effort" to resolve the thornier technical issues.
As for the
broader implications of Alliant's decision, Hinz says he's always viewed
BPL as a "strategic deployment technology," not one a company could roll
out just anywhere and expect to be competitive with existing broadband
services such as cable and DSL.
"At least that's how we were
looking at it.," he said. "You have to find the right areas with the right
topography with the right concentration of certain types of customers," he
said. "And from our test standpoint, we didn't necessarily give perhaps as
much merit to some of those criteria as we should have."
"It's
never been in my mind that BPL has to compete with the speeds of cable
today," Hinz added. "It has to compete with the speeds of cable and the
next best thing tomorrow as well, if it's going to be usable well into the
future."
A BPL extractor in Cedar Rapids The system uses 2.4 GHz
WiFi to make the Internet connection between the pole and customers'
homes.
Utility Cuts Short BPL Trial that was
Target of Amateur Complaints - part I of III
Chairman
Powell,
NEWINGTON, CT, Jun 28, 2004--Alliant Energy has called an
early end to its broadband over power line (BPL) pilot project in Cedar
Rapids, Iowa. The "evaluation system" went live March 30, and plans were
for it to remain active until August or September. Alliant shut it down
June 25. Ongoing, unresolved HF interference from the system to retired
engineer Jim Spencer, W0SR, and other amateurs prompted the ARRL to file a
complaint to the FCC on Spencer's behalf demanding it be shut down.
Spencer said he was happy with Alliant's decision, and was gracious in
expressing appreciation to the utility for working with him on the
interference issues.
"And thanks also to the ARRL and the Cedar
Rapids BPL Steering Committee for their knowledge and efforts in making a
truly professional evaluation," he added.
Alliant Energy's BPL
Project Leader Dan Hinz says the ARRL complaint "certainly was a factor"
in the utility's decision to pull the plug prematurely but "not the
overriding factor." More to the point, he said, was that Alliant also was
able to "accomplish the majority of its objectives" ahead of schedule. The
primary purpose of the Cedar Rapids evaluation was to gain an
understanding of BPL technology and what issues might be involved in a
real-world deployment, Hinz explained, adding that regulatory uncertainty
and other unspecified technical issues also factored into the choice to
end the pilot early.
Hinz said Alliant is "moshing the data" to
compile a written evaluation of the Cedar Rapids pilot, but the company
has no plans at this point to move forward with BPL. Alliant did not
partner with a broadband services provider, and it has no other BPL test
systems in operation. The system used Amperion BPL equipment.
reply again to Microwave Engineer... I wish you
have invented this new BPL/PLC interference suppression !!!... this is not
a spam... but an article related to BPL technology !!!
read:
NEC to Experiment with New Electromagnetic Leakage Suppression
Technology for PLC
Tokyo (JCNN) - NEC (TSE: 6701) announced July
12 the launch of an experiment designed to test electromagnetic leakage
suppression technology that is developed for high-speed broadband power
line communications (PLC).
The field experiment will utilize the
industry's top-class 200 Mbps PLC modem. The test will begin this month,
and last till the end of March 2005.
PLC is a wireline
communications method which uses the existing electric power transmission
and electricity distribution lines, enabling home users to enjoy broadband
Internet connectivity by simply plugging a modem into an AC outlet.
FCC
opens RF interference testing chamber By Heather Forsgren Weaver
May 18 13:25:00, 2004
Columbia, Md.—FCC Chairman Michael
Powell Tuesday morning officially opened the Federal Communications
Commission’s new $750,000 anechoic—no echo—chamber, which will give
the FCC the ability to independently test claims and counterclaims of
harmful interference, within the commission’s laboratory.
“When you don’t have the ability to independently test, you
let a government agency really be at the mercy of companies who would be
happy to provide technical data, but just like statistics, or law or
economics are always going to be presented in the light most favorable to
what they want,†said Powell.
Since becoming chairman in 2001,
Powell has been a consistent supporter of the FCC’s lab located about an
hour’s drive from its headquarters. The FCC lab averaged an annual
budget of $50,000 for the 20 years preceding Powell's chairmanship. For
the past three years, the lab's annual budget has averaged $750,000.
Powell is technically savvy, telling those gathered that he had
set up a broadband-over-powerline system in his parents’ house. He is
the son of Secretary of State Colin Powell. The younger Powell has a Wi-Fi
network in his home.
In addition to the ribbon cutting and
demonstration of the new anechoic chamber, reporters and others were given
a tour of the FCC lab, including demonstrations of testing controversial
technologies, such as broadband over powerline and ultra-wideband.
You know that medical studies have
not been done to fully evaluate the effects of long term exposure from BPL
radiation. This will take years to fully research.
Radio frequency
signals are known to be harmful. The FCC has acknowledged this and has
safety guidelines regarding exposure. Human testing of BPL's
electromagnetic radiation potential harmful effects has not been done,
lack of volunteers? Most Americans use a microwave oven which generates
Radio energy to heat and cook things. All microwave ovens are "shielded"
so that those harmful radio waves cannot escape and damage you while using
it. BPL is not shielded and cannot be since you are unable to put a metal
box around every electrical power line in the country.
The
electrical outlet and lighting fixture wires running through the room
where your child or grandchild is sleeping would be carrying unshielded
BPL signals 24 hours a day, 365 day per year. Think about
that.
Radiation from cellular radio cell sites are well known. Have
you ever seen a cell site at a school or children's playground? When a
cell site is proposed for a residential neighborhood the residents fight
building permits for a site location near their homes for fear of RF
radiation damage to themselves, family members and pets.
Why do
you believe "thinking" Americans would welcome this potential damaging BPL
radiation into their homes?
Please STOP BPL now. Listen to the
engineers, not the paid lobbyist. I know that you come from a legal
background and may not full comprehend all of the negative ramifications
that BPL offers. I would be happy to meet with you and explain in
detail.
re: BPL or hi-speed Broadband over Powerlines has
lots of publicity this week... if you type on any major websearch engine:
BROADBAND OVER POWER LINES and choose NEWS... you will find another trial
of major Telephone company in Menlo Park, California and another in Texas
!!!!!... ongoing ones were in New York, Virginia, Hawaii, and more popping
up lately... I hope they are using the newest BPL modems like the ones in
Japan at 200 mbps chipsets...
I`m glad to hear more and more big
companies involve in this new BPL technology rollouts and trials around
the country !!!!!
I have supported your positions
in the past with respect to new technologies and opening up the radio
spectrum to new uses. I support the use and enforcement of standards, and
not relying on market forces. The FCC should focus on technical standards
and licensing.
For example, HDTV would have been a disaster were
it not for the ATSC standards. I think we can look at AM-stereo as an
example of how not to deliver new technology. In order to get standards
past the chicken and egg point we need more incentives for the massive
investments. To broadcasters, HDTV is a big investment with a questionable
payback. Many broadcasters don't even carry adverstizements on HDTV
because they think the audience is too small to worry about. Investment
tax credits would help broadcasters convert and allow the customers to
accelerate their investment in new receivers and TVs.
Along those
lines, we should encourage the sale of HDTV ready sets, not require DTV
tuners, as many people will want to us satellite and cable. OK with me if
you require DTV tuners if you have analog tuners. No tuner at all, and it
is a monitor. Sell as many as you like.
On the use of "wasted"
space between channels. Why not? Make it automatic though, the hardware
should know where the used channels are and not break when moved to other
areas.
I support more unlicensed low power transmitting. Why can't
I have my own FM station for use in my house? I need more than 30 ft of
distance though. How about enough power to go 300 ft? Dedicate one or two
channels per market that would be legal for unlicensed very low power FM.
Then I can send my music from one part of the house to the backyard,
basement, etc. without wires.
Finally, I want to share how I feel
about censorship. By coming down hard on Howard Stern, you will turn many
non-voters into Kerry voters. I have stopped listening to him, not because
of his languange, but because he is turning his audience into Bush haters
and in my opinion America haters. The FCC should stick to standards and
compliance. Leave the censorship to the market forces. I will tell you I
couldn't care less about Janet jackson and Justin Timberlake before the
Super Bowl. Since then I can guarantee I will never knowingly spend money
to support them. The same applies with all broadcasters. Save the lawyers
for the broadcast pirates, leave the free speach out of the
picture.
Thank you for giving us geeks a chance to have some
input.
Was Jakie Maholow's
"opinion" really deleted from the forum? And if so, why? I do not
necessarily care for Howard Stern, but that doesn't really matter. What
does matter is the excellent point that Jackie Mahlow made.
If
Dick Chaney can utter a profanity in one of the most "sacred" institutions
in the US, how can the FCC, a body of the US government in which he serves
as the second most highest elected official, dare to impose unilateral
censorship in what we hear in a lesser forum?
I forget... Who or
what should be a prime example of decency? What's with the double
standard?
Wow. I guess censorship at the FCC is more alive
and well than I previously thought. I posted yesterday about the FCC's
selective censorship of Howard Stern, and my comments were DELETED. Is
this not an open forum? I would hope Mr. Powell would have some answers
to 8 million radio listeners as to why he (and Bush) are pursuing a
political witch hunt towards Howard Stern, singling him out for
'indecency', which by the way, a definition of this term has still not
been made clear to me, as well as an answer to who has the authority to
declare anything 'indecent'. Is Cheney, THE 'VICE PRESIDENT' OF THE
UNITED STATES, telling Sen. Leahy to 'Go f#ck yourself' on the Senate
floor DECENT??!!?? I think this is a valid question, one worthy of an
answer from Mr. Powell, the man taking the action. I am still awaiting
a response, Chairman Powell, and to everyone else reading this, if my
questions are deleted again, that should be an indication to the rest of
you regarding how open this forum is, as well as the level of honesty and
integrity being put forth.
I too would just love to see the explosion of
broadband capability in every single home, in every corner of America -
and througout the world. If its introduction is done properly, it would be
the best innovation since James Watt's invention of the steam engine. It
would be just about the best thing that could happen in this country. If
every individual could gain access to broadband in every venue, the level
of knowledge, sophistication, mutual understanding and education in this
country would rise dramatically. I cannot wait for such a day.
However, I we should not be willing to jepordize existing
functioning services so hastily by legistlating or "softening" of Part 15
rules of the FCC, in an order to push the BPL initiative (at least in it
its present state) into existance. Part 15 rules were designed to prevent
interference to over-the-air services from such non-licensed emissions
such as garage door openers, inventory management systems, Wi-Fi services,
security systems, microwave ovens and the like. The list could go on and
on. Clearly, if modification or augmentation of Part 15 acceptable
emission limits is required for ANY reason, then there must be a flaw in
the technology of the unlicensed service that requires or requests it. It
cannot become any clearer. You cannot push a square peg easily through a
round hole. I do not think it is in anyone's best interests to actually
"increase" the minimal acceptable emmisions' levels for any service. And
if such a request is ever made, that technology immediatly becomes
suspect.
SunBouncer
| POSTED: 07.14.04 @11:52 | I rated this blog: [5]
Mr. Powell,
I read lots of news about BPL or
very hi-speed Broadband over Power Lines, as another solution to the lack
of broadband internet connections to the rural areas. Every technology has
its own problem while it is still on its beginning phase, but as this
technology matures... solutions for the claim of amateur radio users of hf
interference there will be solutions just like digital FILTERS DSL
companies gave to its subscribers.
Reading from the news lately,
countries like Japan, South Korea, Canada, etc. are coming back with the
new fastest BPL modems. In Japan, there`s a company on news yesterday that
had technology to suppress BPL electro-magnetic leakage that currently
testing on the new 200 Mbps BPL modem.... wow 200 mbps internet speed...
and according to what i read BPL SPEED is the
same...upload/download.
South Korea is relaxing it`s regulation on
BPL, so we can also, in order to promote the maturation of this new
technology.
Older BPL technologies used long ago using high
voltage lines were known to cause HF interference, but now, as i read more
articles, new BPL system/companies are using MEDIUM/LOW VOLTAGE powerlines
that emits lesser interference.
I have lots of SOURCE ARTICLES, but
i CANNOT POST the LINKS here because of spamming issue.
We need
open eyes, support and relaxing of regulatory rules to promote this new
BROADBAND technology, as i was impressed by our President discussing the
benefits of BPL/PLC especially to the ruaral areas and in the field of
advancing HEALTH CARE/MEDICINE industry.
My concern is for the emegence of BroadBand of
Power lines (BPL). From the controversy that I have read, I don't think
that it is anyway near being ready to be delivered to the public. I do not
want a service that may interfere with any over-the-air services. If it
does, it is nothing more than a form of electronic polution. We must
protect "electronic" natural resources just as much as "physical" natural
resources. I think Part 15 needs to be strenghthend, not weakened. I am
concerned that "BIG BUSINESS" and beurocrats are eyeing to reduce the
emission standards of Part 15, just so IT will become more successul. That
would be just like if we decided to dump sewage into a local stream so we
can clear garbage4 from a neighborhood more quickly. We will pay a hefty
price down the road. Please use good judgement when it comes to BPL. Thank
you...
I think that FCC should be more attentive to the
international nature of frequency spectrum allocation.
Consider,
for instance, the RFID UHF space. In US, the frequency to read the
standardized (ePC) pasive tags (Wal-Mart and others) is 915 MHz. However,
in Europe this spot clashes with their allocation for the GSM (mobile
phone sys). Accordingly, the equivalent RFID freq there is 869 MHz.
If you are an entrepreneur, such differneces (and similar
associated regulatory restrictions on power duty cycles) place an
additional burden on the product being designed and also make the future
end-user experience less beneficial.
With advance extra long term
planning and constant discussion, such issues can be minimized so that the
entrepreneurs are spending more time/energy on satisfying true
customer/market needs. It would a;so assure a more location-independent
experience, for the travelling users , with basic and/or important
(personally relevant) technologies.
If anything, this amazing response is a living
example of a healthy discussion within the community on important
socio-economic matter - made possible by technology. On the side though, I
am surprised by the number of appeals for federal involvement in matters
of commerce.
Many of us are really trying to
get a response from you pertaining to the unconstitutional practices of
dictating for us and our families what is and isn't decent.
You are
hiding Sir. Please respond to this very specific matter. It means so much
to many, many patriotic Americans to hear why you believe your illegal and
unfair practices are constiutionally founded.
With the upcoming
election, I believe this matter alone can lose the election for George
Bush. I personally plan on voting for him but if the FCC does not address
the concerns of the people and their right to free speech, I cannot vote
for Mr. Bush.
This principle strikes at the core of our rights as
Americans and our liberties as a free people.
Please sir, you need
to show the truly concerned and worried Americans the respect we deserve
and address us on this matter.
Thank you for your time Sir.
Please...do the right thing under the constitution of this great
nation.
Mr. Powell. Write this phrase on the blackboard 100
times. Live it, learn it, like it!
"Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances." (First Amendment)
The 'Communications Spectrum' is a natural resourse
that belongs to everyone. You can't just give it away for free. Then what,
someone can sell us a gizmo so they can charge us to use it?
Curt
| POSTED: 07.13.04 @15:09 | I rated this blog: [2]
I'm on Social Security & get $868.88 per month.
I live in a small apartment. I don't have room nor the money for a HDTV
set. Sure they're better, but millions of people will be left out without
convers.
I think that the FCC should act as an agent for "we
the people" and offer the unused spectrum between the TV channels for use
for digital wireless devices.
I applaud your efforts to use
blogging technology to make yourself more accessible to the public.
However, I hope you'll consider switching blogging hosts to either
Blogger or Typepad. The service that AlwaysOn provides is very cluttered
(and SLOW!) and looks more like an adveritising-driven portal site than
blogging service.
Even that would be bearable, but the absence of
RSS feeds is a major limitation of AlwaysOn's service -- for that reason
alone, you should consider switching to Blogger and/or making an RSS feed
a requirement from AlwaysOn.
As it stands right now, the user
interface and lack of RSS aggregation support will make it unlikely that I
would visit your blog very often. Which is a shame, as I would sincerely
like to hear your thoughts on the challenging issues that the FCC faces
today.
"form a more perfect union, establish justice,
insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general welfare...
IMHO, There would be no domestic tranquility
when jobs move overseas and we live in fear of terrorism. Common defense
without infrastucture is just empty words...so is promoting general
welfare without any guidance. And promoting general welfare seems to be
anathema to the capitalistic society. and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity without a decent infrasture
would be not only impossible but loss of liberty is guaranteed as is
happening now. Other than that who needs the government! Smart
thinking.
The point is government should lead us in developing the
infrastructure necessary for common defense and to form a more (not less)
perfect union. Just came back from Mexico City. They are blaming the
Americans for all their problems including their manufacturing base moving
to China. Infrastructure! what is that?
Robbie Jena writes, "infrastruture should be our
government's job". This is absolutely not so. Government's job is to "form
a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". Industry can
very easily and more efficiently attend to matters of communication
infrastructure given a market demand for such, and fund the development of
this infrastructure with private investments and profits from providing a
service rather than via tax dollars. The FCC should play no role in this
other than to arbitrate any disagreements between companies vying for the
same public resources.
Continued from previous
post... The second is a pet project of mine. It has to do with the next
generation artificial intelligence (AI) based communication
infrastructure. Imagine a PDA type computer/communication device that
maintains your personality. It communicates through available broadband
wi-fi route to your home/office computer and main AI servers in secure
data centers. The function of these devices would be to communicate and
move and manage information in your daily activities. As the information
explosion occurs, it is difficult to remember and manage dynamic
multivariables, so a personal avatar can help manage these activities in a
way, that is not possible before. The avatar would know where your family
members and friends are by constantly staying in touch with their avatars.
Your avatar would be a self learning extensions of you that can read all
the Google news, New York times etc and give you what you would be most
interested in knowing. You will never forget a birthday or the right gift
to buy for your loved ones. The applications for this is limited by ones
imaginations and level of the AI incorporated which would be changing as
we get better at it. This idea came to me when I was proposing an AI based
system to DARPA to manage complex and moving enemy targets over time. The
same system can be used for urban combat and counter terrorism activities
where large amount of vital information has to be dynamically managed.
I am waiting for a decent infrastruture and developments in
hardware to make this a reality. While the innovation and architecture of
such a system is my/our job, the infrastruture should be our government's
job. Knowing what is possible, what the trends are, can provide valuable
information for policy decisions towards the next generation of technology
and economic growth, this country desparately needs. Good luck Mr. Powell,
I am a fan of yours.
Kudos to Mr. Powell for willing to
understand what is going on in the minds of the users and innovators. It
is a long way from ideas to entreprenuers to the establishment and
lobbyists. Because of this, after our manufacturing base moved to China,
we did not have any new technology to take over manufacturing so quickly.
This country has so much talent, but needs to be nurtured in a way to
bring it to the surface for all to benefit from.
Several years ago,
I contacted our local energy company, Entergy to explore the powerline
pole based wi-fi system. They politely declined saying it is not their
core business. For idea people like me, it is difficult to change the
dynamics and introduce new, highly productive but disruptive systems in to
the marketplace since guards are everywhere that maintain the status quo.
Connecting ideas and money to explore these ideas are
difficult.
There are two areas I would like Mr. Powell to think
about how the government can promote an environment of high technology
that we must develop for America to have a competitive edge in the world
market. The first is the ultrahigh definition audio-visual systems. There
are graphic cards now available that sport 2560X1600 pixel resolution and
Apple is spearheading widescreen monitors to match those developments. As
the DLP resolution goes up, in six years we may jump from today's High
Definition TV to ultrahigh level. Basically the HDTV would be obsolete
before it began. With blue laser DVDs or other high density developments,
movies can be seen two to four times better resolution than HDTV in a
matter of few years. So, plan should be in place as to the standards or
ability to incorporate these new technologies in the market place and even
encouraged where needed. (contd...next post)
"Government's role in the marketplace should be
limited because markets and entrepreneurs develop innovative solutions far
more efficiently than regulators can."
Good of you to see this. In
fact, nearly everything is better without government involvement. As far
as I know, there is no constitutional amendment which gives government any
right to regulate most of what they do. "The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people," says the Ninth Amendment. Rights
retained by the people include most of those currently regulated by the
FCC. Please repeal all rules and policies not specifically granted to you
by the people. Specifically:
"Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances." (First Amendment)
You have no authority to dictate
what people can or cannot say, or what they can or cannot show on
broadcast television, radio, or any other medium. There can be no
confusion about "no law... abridging the freedom of speech". NO LAW! Any
rule or policy the FCC creates regarding censorship of any kind is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Get off the breast, leave Howard alone, and stop the
ridiculous harassment of broadcasters who are under absolutely no
obligation to bleep, pixelate, or otherwise censor anything. If you or
anyone else doesn't like it, then change the channel.
The People
are tired of big government. Stop taking liberties with our
liberties.
Summary:
NUON in the Netherlands is not going to offer its digital services through
the power lines any longer. It will stop its services in the beginning of
July. They have determined that the technology is too limited and that it
is still not commercially attractive to offer internet services through
the power lines. NUON claims that the test they performed shows that it is
possible to offer internet services on a small scale. However, the
technology is not ready yet for a large scale applications. One of the
biggest problems is that it is very susceptible to interference. The
Telecom Agency of the Dutch Government has determined through measurements
that signals are too strong and cause interference to radio
communications.
Now how about
those rural areas, or even areas where DSL and Cable are not available,
there is still satellite Internet, and BPL if a powerline goes out there.
Those areas happen to have a really low noise level on lowbands. It is
going to be a did, because with the installation of BPL, lowband
transceivers and shortwave receivers will be useful. BPL is advertised as
being a technology that will "adapt" or when it detects communications
interference on a specific frequency/range it will "block out" or stop
using that range to transmit and receive data. How is it going to detect
long distance shortwave communications? and for lowband, or HF
communications, an amateur radio operator is not going to transmit if he
cannot hear anyone to make a contact. How is that operator even going to
know someone can hear him/her if all they hear is interference/static.
But then if this doesn't convince you, other countries in Europe
tried BPL and rejected it already because it was not found to be an
economical and efficient form of broadband Internet. You probably are
already aware of all these facts now, and know more about it than me, so
why is the FCC pushing BPL at the urging of a conglomerate of companies if
its rollout is not for the benefit of everyone, even including users of
BPL? Does the FCC have any major plans to limit band/frequency usage by
BPL so that national and international communications are not interfered
with? Are power companies really qualified to be and ISP or reseller of
internet services with companies like Earthlink and AOL? Mind you that
power companies have no experience or business model for the telecomm
industry.
Please consider, and show the mass benefits from BPL
that give it enough reason to be developed and used for consumer use,
because i don't see the benefits that are so good, compared to the effects
in has on many critical and non-critical communications
systems
As another has stated on here,
I have an interest in Broadband over Power Lines (BPL) and the push that
private industry and the FCC is making to roll it out not in development
or experimentation, but production. I realize that a part of the FCC
missions statement is to bring broadband technology to everyhome in
America. With the rollout of DSL, Cable Internet, Satellite Internet, and
even Sprint's Highspeed Wireless/Microwave technology, there seemed to be
no bounds. Well, seemed, but the power company appeared to want to apart
of this technology boom, and a BPL product was designed from consumer use,
a modification of their own internal technology for remotely reading
equipped meters, but there are some significant differences between their
internal use, and public/commercial use. BPL in its experimental stages
has demonstrated a measurable about of interference of low band SSB and AM
communications. Major defense systems are affected, as a low band signal
is used to communicate with submarines around the world and in the water
when not directly uplinked with satellites. That seems to just affect the
Navy, but the Air Force also uses low-band communications for aircraft to
ground communications, where BPL also interferes with such communications.
Those are just the defense related concerns.
In Urban and Suburban
areas, law enforcement and emergency services that still use low band
radios such as California Highway Patrol(CHP.) CHPs long range
communications is potentially affected by BPL (has not been significantly
affected in CA as there have been no major rollouts of BPL.) In other
rural areas other emergency services may not be able to be dispatched to a
call because of interference from BPL. So a family member could die
because BPL did not allow for communications to send an emergency vehicle
to the seen.
But lets not stop there, Aircraft Landing Systems
(ALS) and control tower operations are also all lowband for the long
distance communications (greater than 100 miles.) An ALS/Control Tower in
San Francisco has already had to cease operations due to a residential BPL
setup for a Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) network setup. If this
technology is rolled out into metro politan areas, are we going to close
the airports and open them somewhere else? Or an occasional plane crash
will be acceptable so that the FCC can bring BPL and broadband to every
home...
I am especially interested in your call for input
on spectrum issues. the fact is, you have been more enlightened,
pro-active, and constructive - in the face of big telco lobbying efforts,
and even Government agencies who want control of more and more frequencies
- in opening up unlicensed spectrum, to enable successors devices to Wi-Fi
to connect up Americans, rural as well as urban, at the lowest possible
and competitive cost, broadband data and voice in ways unprecedented in
communications history. If you are a 'lame duck' you will be sorely missed
in these endeavors. For, in comparison with the dead ears, foot dragging,
and technological ignorance as well as lack of 'societal communications
imagination' of your predecessors Reed Hunt and William Kinnard - who
didn't listen to any input from either engineers or innovators, you have
already opened up more doors to a promising wireless communications
revolution future than anyone since Marconi and TCP/IP. I think I will
make a few suggestions here on your own Blog - even though I have
faithfully followed the FCC Hearing Rules, and posted my views on a whole
series of NOIs and NPRMs for years. Which comments are filtered before
they get to the Commissioners by the legion of FCC lawyers and staff.
IEEE-USA Cites Concern About Rules on Access
BPL Systems in FCC Filing
WASHINGTON (10 May 2004) — In a filing
with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last week, IEEE-USA
raised concerns about proposed FCC rules on Access Broadband over Power
Line (BPL) systems.
IEEE-USA expressed concerns about interference
to the licensed users of HF spectrum, and concerns about interference to
Access BPL systems from those users. The organization noted the potential
negative impact of such interference on the ultimate reliability of Access
BPL as a means of delivering broadband service to users. It cited possible
adverse effects on many uses that are critical to national security,
homeland defense, and emergency and disaster
communications.
IEEE-USA called for additional studies to evaluate
the efficacy of any proposed interference-mitigation techniques. According
to the organization, the FCC should not prematurely promulgate rules in
the absence of such proof.
Finally, IEEE-USA called on the FCC to
extend the deadline for reply comments by at least 30 days — preferably 45
days — beyond the current deadline of 1 June to allow interested parties
sufficient time to review and consider the content of a National
Telecommunications and Information Administration report and other studies
that are expected to be submitted in the initial comment phase. The
IEEE-USA filing is accessible at http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6516183235
In
addition, the IEEE Standards Association and IEEE Power Engineering
Society are holding a "Call for Interest in Standards Development for
Broadband over Power Lines" meeting in Denver on 7 June. For more
information, visit http://standards.ieee.org/announcements/pr_bplinvite.html
IEEE-USA
is an organizational unit of the IEEE. It was created in 1973 to advance
the public good and promote the careers and public-policy interests of the
more than 225,000 technology professionals who are U.S. members of the
IEEE. The IEEE is the world's largest technical professional society. For
more information, go to http://www.ieeeusa.org/
IEEE-USA 1828 L
Street, N.W., Suite 1202 Washington, DC 20036-5104 Phone:
202-785-0017, Fax: 202-785-0835
1) Bill Waler wrote
previously, "I don't think it's the job of the FCC to add more bloated
government regulations to mass media and have a bureaucrat decide what and
what not can be seen by citizens of this free country."
The problem
is not bureaucrats. There are undoubtedly many fine people employed by the
FCC who wholeheartedly agree with many of the statements made by "us
folks" in reply to Mr. Powell's essay. The problems at the FCC stem from
politically appointed department-heads like Mr. Powell.
2) The flap
over "indecency" is ostensibly to "protect our children." Every television
or radio broadcaster has a web-site, many of them quite extensive and
employing state-of-the-art effects to sell their product. Why then must
one travel, in some cases 100+ miles, to review the same broadcaster's
records related to their children's programming?
3) I cannot speak
for other markets but in Southern California there are no "holes" between
"channels," only ever increasing interference due to overlapping signals.
This situation is bad-enough given the emissions of FCC-licensed
broadcasters, but when an increasing number of Mexican broadcasters are
added to the mix the result decrees that only the most powerful will be
heard.
When one Mexican broadcaster was asked why his antenna is of
a design capable of handling many times his licensed output power he
answered, "Maybe Mexican Watts are different than U.S. Watts." The FCC
claims that they are powerless to act beyond sending a letter to the
offending broadcasters.
The only real complaint which I currelty have with
the broadcasting industry, and regulatory bodies in the US would be with
the cable industry. In my opinion it is overdue for allowing cable and
satellite customers the option of ordering every channel on a per channel
basis. For instance, the media giant Viacom would not be allowed to
require any of their channels to be bundled together to subscrbe to one of
their channels. For example, one subscriber has the ability to pay a set
price for Niceloden, yet no other Viacom channels if they do not want
them. Another user can buy subscription to MTV and Nicktoons without any
further obligation to Viacom.
Currently, cable subscribers are left
to the mercy of older rules which stemmed from the nature of cable's early
days when individual channels could not be isolated one by one on a per
subscription basis. With digital transmission such custom services could
now become a reality. This will not only call for the networks to improve
their programming in order to hold their subscriber base, but will finally
bring the much needed avenue for choice to television.
Thank you and welcome to
the blogosphere! Agile businesses like ours have gained enormous
advantages through clever applications of the ubiquitous broadband that
has been available in the corporate world for many years. There is an
enormous, unfulfilled potential that can be unleashed if real broadband
were common in every home in America. The economic surge and long term
educational benefits alone would keep America at the forefront of the
industrial world and enable our workforce to seize the opportunity in
light of global trends such as offshoring. I would be very interested in
hearing more specifics about how your team is working to bring broadband
(and higher speed Asia-type speeds) into all homes at very affordable
prices. Like public education, broadband should to be available to every
American - it will soon be a requirement for living just as our
forefathers envisioned education would be. I would also be interested in
knowing if there is collaboration between your team and the Dept of
Education and Dept of Commerce so that there is a unified
vision.
Regards,
Joe Fung Managing Director Burgiss
Group Private Equity Software
Firstly, great idea with the
blog. I think I can say 'thank you' on behalf of everyone who still cares.
The BPL is a great idea in so many ways.. In times like these, most people
aren't aware of the big picture. With IT being the fastest growing, most
valuable natural resource, the US can't hinder the speed and growth in
which our nation learns anymore then it already is. And the speed in which
information can travel is the most important thing. Every industry is
going through growing pains, and they're only going to get worse for
anyone unwilling to accept the fact we are entering a world where there
will be a free solution to just about everything. The new way of making
money is by creating a two way path, like google, where their viewers are
the bread and butter, and all their innovation is aimed at giving them the
best free user experience available, and in the other direction businesses
are paying just to be a part of it. Trying to regulate any part of the
technological firestorm that hasn't even begun to really hit will be what
brings down the US in the end. For example, the record and movie industry,
the cost to make a movie, will never be able to keep up with the fact that
today's' youth would get it for free before they spend 5 cents on it. All
these wasted efforts in technologies to try and stop it, lawsuits, it's
ridiculus. If half the money that was spent towards that stuff was put
into educating kids on the inner working of the recording and movie
industries, then your making a difference. People who don't feel guilty
about stealing music, just don't understand that are, in reality, stealing
from an industry of very hardworking people. All in all, i just want to
make the point that the US could learn a lot from what S. Korea is doing.
We already have a long way to catch up. And the only way to do so is jump
on the bandwagon with the mob of 'free is best' minded people, and try to
make that situation work. BPL should be a top priority, we cant' slow down
the speed our nations learns, the average kid with brains isn't getting
them from school anymore, they're getting there smarts from the web.
Things are going to need to be free when everyone looses their jobs slowly
over the course of the next 40 years.
Obviously DigitalGeek has the money to buy a new TV
for his mother, but there are many on Social Security who do not. Analog
will be necessary for the next 15 years! Maybe it is time to develop a
digital adapter. (And start an new industry) I believe that the FCC is
doing a good job given it's resources. My question to him is why are all
your people in DC and not out in the countryside telecommuting?
Chairman Powell, - part II from T. Graves,
microwave engineer
BPL is bad for every other type of
communications. By contrast, cable TV contains the TV signals in
coaxial cable (or shield) in much the same way that water is transported
in a pipe and if the signal leaks out the cable company sends a technician
to plug the leak. BPL power lines are an antenna radiating 360 degrees
around every mile of length, cannot be shielded and they are “one big
leak“.
BPL service providers will be able to program their signal
to avoid some internet user interference from local specific sources for
their customers who live near a radio station transmitter site. BPL
internet would still receive interference (disruption of internet) from
roving Mobil transmitters that come and go like the neighbor kids walkie
talkie, garage door opener, police, amateur radio, citizens band,
airplanes, atmospheric disturbances like lightning, neon sign noise,
dimmer switches, touch lamps, etc.
The bandwidth of power line BPL
is substandard compared to other internet access methods. Cable modems
are far better and of course fiber optic internet is the absolute best.
The United States should be investing it's money in linking the
country with FIBER OPTICS. Fiber optics which has virtually unlimited
bandwidth, is not susceptible to interference or jamming, does not create
interference to other communication services, and is much more "hardened"
to destruction in the event of war, and many more reasons that would take
pages to describe.
This BPL nonsense is "Big Business" pushing
their agenda with millions of dollars in lobbying fees paid. . . . . . . .
. . Don't forget, the tobacco industry told us smoking was good for us.
BPL is good for the Power utilities (remember Enron) who own the
power lines and stand to receive additional billions in revenues, it is
bad for everyone else. BPL is not a technology leap, it is a stumble
backwards.
Chairman Powell, I am a Microwave and RF
Engineer. The laws of physics cannot be changed, BPL will interfere with
almost every other communications service regulated by the FCC in it’s
spectrum. I have read the FCC request for comments on BPL and the example
that the FCC used to suggest that BPL would not cause interference is
horribly flawed and misleading.
The example used was that of a
controlled carrier low power college station, where the radio signal rides
on the college power lines and does not interfere off campus. That college
station is on one and only one channel out of trillions of possible
channels. Everyone at college expects that station to be there, the signal
does not carry beyond the campus and no other station is allowed to use
that frequency per FCC rules, thus "no interference." In contrast, BPL
transmits on every frequency irregardless if it is in use and worse yet,
the power lines go everywhere.
The BPL signal transmitted on the
power lines will encompass trillions of channels, be on every power line
in the United States and unless you live where there are zero power lines
you will be interfered with. Do not count on enjoying a sports game while
driving home on the freeway if power lines are near by and most roads have
power lines running beside them. If your home is in a "fringe" area for TV
or FM radio and you are not on cable, it’s likely your picture and/or
sound will be interfered with. Other services likely to be interfered with
by BPL are police, fire, pagers, military, civil defense, business, FMRS,
CB, amateur, r/c hobby, garage doors, alarms, commercial and military
airplanes, wireless vehicle entry and many more. Radio station listeners,
who live more than 10 miles from the broadcast transmitter may have
difficulty hearing the music, talk or other programming because of BPL
interference.
Don't you find it a bit obscene
that the fine for using weapons of mass destruction is less than the fine
imposed on radio personalities? And when will you wake up and realize that
it is the PARENTS job to decide and monitor what their children listen to,
not yours. If someone is offended by what is broadcast on TV or Radio they
have the option to turn the channel or turn it off all together. As
adults, we should all be able to pick and choose what we wish to listen
to, and what we do not wish to listen to. This right should not be
infringed upon by anyone, and noone should be able to tell any other adult
what they can and cannot listen to or view. Also, when will you
finally break up the monopoly that is Clear Channel?
At the end of 2006, it's an absolutely must that analog
television go away. First off, that bandwidth can be put to far better use
elsewhere, and second, digital television is getting cheap now and if
analog television goes away, it's going to be dirt cheap. A few people
aren't going to like this, but a few people shouldn't be allowed to stop
the progress of the many. Bringing digital television to the next stage is
good for entrepreneurs, good for those watching it, and good for the
economy. Not to mention the good that can be done with the old spectrum.
Don't let the broadcast companies screams as you take back the old
spectrum sway you, it's the public's bandwidth not there's. The FCC must
not give the broadcast companies any more time. This is absolutely
critical. Thanks!
digitalgeek
| POSTED: 07.11.04 @14:55 | I rated this blog: [5]
The thing that most caught my attention in your
post is the comment that broadcasters consider unused channels as "their"
spectrum. This is an interesting viewpoint on what I've always heard
referred to as "the public airwaves."
It is my belief that all
spectrum belongs to the public. To support this, I offer the evidence of
your own agency--developed by the government to assign and administer
these airwaves for the public good and benefit. Furthermore, I do not
believe extending the concentration of current media control to
multinational megaliths benefits the public who owns these airwaves. The
exercise of democracy requires an informed electorate. Limiting access to
public airwaves decreases public discourse, and limits access to
information voters need to make good decisions on the future of our
country.
Therefore, as a citizen-owner of the airwaves the FCC
administers, I see it as your responsibility to me and the rest of the
public to support any technologies and any uses of our broadcast spectrum
that widens information sources and broadens public access. Sincerely,
Chris Finnie, Boulder Creek, CA
Chris
| POSTED: 07.11.04 @14:40 | I rated this blog: [2]
Hey Michael, ignore those who say you're bollocks.
This is fooking breelliant.
You are still sidestepping the
basic issue of the airwaves being public. What the government has done
over the last decade is sell our airwaves to private
corporations.
I can't own a radio station. I can't own a television
station. Television = Profits Anything that generates profit is not
public.
So if you are going to regulate an industry that is not
public, then you must start treating it that way.
Mr Powell: Could you please talk about your
spectrum policy? Media consolidation of an old transmission paradigm
doesn't bother me. What I'm interested in is new services and particularly
what the commission is doing to promote (not auction) more frequencies to
foster a more development by entrepreneurs and new network providers,
accelerated higher uptake in consumer penetration, and higher transmission
speeds for Internet access as well as other IP based
communications.
Thank you for your sincere
attempt to reach out to US taxpapers directly.
Mr. Powell, Did you
know that the network television broadcasters are squandering the HDTV
spectrum that the FCC so generously provided to them free of charge? With
one notable exception (PBS) the television networks have failed to provide
a credible amount of HDTV programming. Mostly they are broadcasting
regular standard definition TV on their HDTV signal. Only occassionally
(eg., primetime) do they broadcast any HDTV content. NBC and FOX are by
far the worst offendors. NBC won't broadcast even a single frame of
Olympics 2004 coverage in HDTV! PBS is the only network that broadcasts
HDTV content around the clock. So the television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC,
Fox) are all squandering the HDTV spectrum that the FCC so generously
provided to them for free, and taxpayers are suffering. Why? HDTV spectrum
didn't cost them anything, so they're not loosing anything by wasting it.
I heartily recommend that you require the networks to rapidly achieve 100%
HDTV content or be forced to return their HDTV spectrum to the FCC for
someone else to use or at least pay the taxpayer for its
use.
Please reconsider the use of the
broadcast flag. While it may be true that it alone does not infringe on
fair use, restricting a persons ability to circumvent the flag (or even
reverse engineer the mechanism for home use) via the DMCA and other
similar laws it will be illegal to actually execute any fair use rights.
Essentially it would be like having the Pentagon built around a public
library. It is still legal to use the library any time you want however
getting to it would be illegal due to the restrictions placed upon free
passage.
Imagine how your children or grandchildren would feel if
they could not watch their favorite program because it could not be
recorded or it "expired" before they could watch it, or if you returned
from a long trip and could not watch your favorite show. Explain to them
that you were one of the people who made it illegal to record their
favorite shows.
While it will be illegal, there will some that will
circumvent the restrictions anyway. This is not going to prevent
professional piracy, only restrict those families who wish to enjoy their
favorite shows together.
How will the broadcast flag affect persons
who wish to compile their own DVDs? Will a person have to keep their
wedding, graduation, and birthday videos in their native form or will they
be able to make copies of their own material to give to friends and
family? If they cannot do this, will they then have to go to a
professional video-editing studio to get this simple task done? And who
would license the person or equipment performing the editing? Will the
technology be limited to television studios?
The technology will be
broken by people who have no respect for the law, or who are in other
countries where the law has no reach. The public backlash against the law
will be loud. When I informed my parents of this they couldn't believe it.
They thought that I was making it up, until I directed them to the
information. They told me that it was wrong that such a law would be
considered.
The best thing to do is to drop the use of the
broadcast flag altogether.
Another challenge is the fragmentation of media.
Our “media” rules are really no such thing. They are focused exclusively
on free-over-the-air broadcasting. For decades the Commission has
regulated broadcasting and ignored cable as a voice (mind you over 85% of
Americans pay for TV, by cable or DBS). The rules had completely ignored
the internet as an outlet for opinion and organization. A sound policy
needs to take these sources into account in drawing lines, and I have
argued for better inclusion of these medium. Broadcast is in decline as
audiences continue to fragment. It depends exclusively on advertising
revenue for its survival. Other media are in the ascendancy. My kids do
not have any idea what a broadcast network is. They see no difference
between channel 4 and channel 104. And—they are boys—you are much more
likely to find them on their Xbox or playstation, or the internet anyway.
Perhaps, the time is not yet ripe for crediting these trends, as others
argue, but I think we should.
Finally, I would urge those of you
interested (especially those who are critical of our decision) to look
carefully at what we actually did. Many complained about radio
consolidation and Clear Channel owning over 1200 stations. We agreed and
restricted further radio consolidation in our rulemaking (this fact is
often overlooked in traditional media articles). We prohibit networks from
buying each other. Networks pushed for us to eliminate the national cap on
ownership. We refused, and only modified it to account for the greater
number of sources coming from cable, DBS and the internet. I do believe in
media limits and agree with everyone who thinks it is correct to be
concerned. But, we need a deeper discussion about how and where to draw
the lines than we have had.
Sorry I cannot respond to everyone, but
I plan to review comments regularly and post as often as I can. I
appreciate the comments and support. Lets keep the discussion going. I
think this is an amazing way to hear the views of bright people that share
a passion for the direction of our country.
Media Ownership: I appreciate the comments many of
you have made about media ownership. I want to be clear about my thinking
on this. Yes, I believe strongly that media concentration can hurt the
marketplace of ideas if unchecked. I also think it is critical (though
difficult to measure) to have a diverse marketplace; one that promotes
local content. The challenge for the technocrat (that is me) is not
whether we believe in the risk of excess concentration, but where you draw
the line. Diversity values are important, but they do not lend themselves
to mathematical precision. It is not easy to figure out whether you need 5
stations in a market, or only 4 before diversity is compromised. Some draw
lines tightly or loosely base on whether they are supporters, or
detractors of particular content. The NRA hates “gun toting liberial media
elites and Anti-war groups are incensed with Fox News Network. Keep in
mind it is dangerous for government to draw lines based on the messages it
prefers.
To be clear, however,
I still think we need to promote competition through access to the
incumbent’s network. I have not been a big supporter of UNE-P, however,
for a few reasons: First, I always thought it was illegal under the
statute and would misdirect the competitive market to develop on a
regulatory arbitrage whose days were numbered. That day arrived in the
recent court case. Second, I do not believe all the high ambitions for
competition should rest on basically reselling the incumbents services.
Consumers get a choice, but a flat one. There is not much product
differentiation possible (just selling the same thing). Not much price
competition possible (stuck with price inputs and a state regulated retail
market). Not much network redundancy at a time of serious risk to our
nation. We are going to write new competition rules in the next 6 months
and they will promote small competitors using the incumbent’s network to
provide necessary facilities. Facilities-based competition is something I
strongly support. In fact, most small and mid-size companies are
facilities providers. The biggest disciples of UNE-P have been the giant
long distance companies.
Thank you all for the warm welcome. I am so
impressed with the breadth and depth of so many of your comments. I would
like to respond to several of the topics that seem to interest many of
you:
Strategic Vision and Competition Policy:
Mark Zorro
asked about a clear vision for the FCC and many of you (Jerry H, Robert
Lamb, and Peter Rad just to name a few) have asked about competition
policy. We do have a vision. I call it digital migration. The biggest
problem for the last 100 years has been the government embracing monopoly
and the fact that there was basically one-wire to bring communication
service to the all consumers, regardless of where they lived (yes remote
parts of Alaska are expensive this way). A network was optimized for 1
application—copper wire for voice by telcos, coaxial for multichannel
video by cable companies and so on. Our vision is to solve the one-wire
dynamic by driving multiple broadband platforms to reach people. This is
why we have adopted policies to push for DSL, Cable Modem, Broadband over
Powerline, Wifi, Wmax, satellite broadband and ultrawideband technology.
We believe a tech vision can drive multiple platforms and create greater
“pipe” competition. It is not for us to pick the winners, but to let
technical innovators have a chance. More importantly, by following the
internet paradigm and thinking of services as applications that can be
divorced from any one platform, we can see a second order of competition
developing in the application layer. VOIP is a strong example! Less
regulation in this service layer will foster innovation and competition.
It is critical we refrain from onerous economic regulation on such
services. A vigilant eye on infrastructure providers is still critical. We
have pushed enforcement (we have the highest fines against incumbents than
any past commission.) I have urged the adoption of net neutrality
principles, warning pipe providers against interfering with the bits
flowing to willing consumers. This blog is valuable, in part, to refine
this vision.
I, like a lot of my friends and
business associates, listen to Howard Stern. As a group, we are all
well-educated and gainfully employed. We pay a considerable amount of
taxes to pay your salary. Your definition of obscenity does not fit mine,
especially when you seem unprepared to explain exactly what rules need to
be followed.
Going back three years ago and fining Howard for past
shows in which you redefine indecency is absurd. Maybe you and your fellow
commissioners need to go back about 200 years and take a better view of
what freedom means.
It's likely that everything I'm
going to say here has already been said, especially since this blog has
been linked to from Slashdot, but the more support this side has, the
better.
First off, censorship = bad. Period. I don't care if
certain groups are offended by free speech. If they don't like what's on
TV or the radio, they can change the channel. When you tune in to Howard's
show, you know what you're going to get. A lot of pro-censorship groups
use the excue of "protecting the children." It's the parent's job to
protect their children, not the government's. The FCC should stick to its
real purpose of assigning radio spectrum.
Second, digital radio and
TV have a bright future, as long as the RIAA/MPAA are kept away from
regulating it. The broadcast flag is a very bad idea, which does not serve
the good of the people. We need to be able to record as we choose, without
these "industry groups" dictating when, if, and for how long we can do
so. It has been repeatedly proven that these DRM "content protection"
systems do nothing to prevent copyright infringment, and only exist to
restrict legitimate uses by law-abiding citizens. Look on any P2P
nstwork and you can find hundreds of DVD rips, even though DVDs have a DRM
system in the form of CSS. DeCSS and similar tools have existed for years,
allowing copyright infringers (and tech-savvy users who just want their
fair use rights) to easily rip their DVDs. I can easily and legally put
a HDTV tuner in my PC or buy a HDTV TiVo and record any over-the-air
content I choose to right now. Why should I lose this ability just because
Jack Valenti thinks that I will distribute it over the
internet.
Basically, copyright infringment is a crime, ad those who
do it should be punished, but fair use should not be limited in a vain
attempt to stop them.
Third, I fully support opening up some of the
TV spectrum for low power unlicensed communications, as long as a system
can be developed to ensure that these transmissions do not affect TV
broadcasts.
Sincerely, Sean Harlow Biohazard Custom
Computers Spencer, OH
You say - "I am particularly mindful of this
principle as new competitive services—VoIP, for example—become viable
alternatives for customers."
Which is odd considering the
latest dc court rulings on the fCC regs, and refusal to clarify until
after the November election. This is excerbated by the total lack of any
sort of oversite of the universal acccess fee, which in truth is just
money in the pockets of the monopolists.
Lets see -
Line
sharing is gone, UNEP is gone, UNE is gone. A 4 foot piece of coax cable
called a cross connect used to cost $65 month, and I thought that was
highway robbery. After the recent ruling, that same 4 foot piece of copper
is now $1500/month and the ILEC wants to back bill it for the 2 previous
years. How exactly is CLEC supposed to compete? If you want VoIP to take
off, why are you crushing ISP's and CLEC's ability to get network
connectivity to the customer? I wish I was an ILEC, I could have the
taxpayer pay for my network and petition the FCC to regulate my
competitors and the inovtaors away.
The FCC keeps stating their
desire to promote competition, especially facilities based competition.
Perhaps the FCC should start ACTING like it wants competition. Start by
clarifying the FCC's posistion quickly on the recent DC court ruling and
actually start promoting some of that competition you keep talking about.
I'm am so excited that the FCC
has finely taken action against the foul language and crud humour of a
certain morning 'Shock Jock'. The airwaves are public property and should
not be used for anything that is against the public's
interest.
However, I believe that you shouldn't just stop with him.
This rap music I keep hearing about does nothing but objective women, talk
about drug use, and glorify the gang violence. I've never listened to it
because I am of follower of Christ. But what I've heard about it on Fox
News doesn't please me very much. Please take that off the air. As a
matter of fact, all popular music does this so please take all popular
music off the air. It is offensive and works against the public's
good.
Sports talk radio does not give equal time to women's sports
and has no coverage of the special olympics. This is a violation of
federal equal access laws, so please take off all sports talk radio
too.
Finally, religious talk shows and conservative radio
personalities frequently discuss 'the fags'. Frequent comments discuss how
fags should get "aids and die" and how catholics are going to burn in hell
for following the pope and not Jesus. Salvation is through the Bible! How
does this jibe with the public's good. Please take them off the air too.
And take Opera off the air too, she's talked about sex on her
show!
Thank you again, Mr. Powell. You're doing your best at
screwing over the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.
Remember Those Words.
I don't see any mention
Censorship or Indecency. Do you Mr Powell.
First of all, thank you for taking
the initiative to contact us directly.
The answer to your question
seems obvious. We have the ability to increase the available spectrum
by 33% and support innovation in a very high growth area. The likely
result would be incresed competition, services, income, and employment.
Add to this the possibility of a highly strategic innovation and I'm
left wondering what could possibly be the opposing argument ?
Entitlement is not an argument.
This question was a slow pitch
softball... I hope the next one is tougher.
In reaction to the preceding
dilemma there are an array public relations or 'support'/'help'
organizations--angel investors, venture capitalists, businessplan
competitions, etc.--designed to provide that essential resource, capital,
that would solve the small businessman/innovator/inventor's problems.
These organizations are blessings for those who win their support, but in
my estimation/experience competition and corruption are such that the
losers material and ideas--their hand being 'tipped'--risk giving away
free 'advice', and since it was financial aid that they sought they have
the new dilemma of waging a courtroom battle.
Many of the watchdog
organizations created to ensure fair administration of the innovative
process are themselves funded--and in some instances were created at the
behest of--by the large corporations who the system benefits. And then the
attorneys who would have the greatest opportunity for success against
these corporations are wary to fight against them because it is against
their own self-interest. For example, if as corporate attorney it is my
duty to verify, write, enforce, and litigate patents then to litigate a
patent for a client is 1/4th of their income. However, to fight against
the larger corporations threatens their being blackballed and cut off from
performing the other 3/4ths of their business. Which would beg the
necessity of a well-funded entity whose duty is to fight on behalf of the
small innovator without interference or threat from corporate influence.
(An answer that itself threatens to return to frivolous
lawsuits.)
The current system works for those researchers who came
up through academia and who have the backing of their educational
institution to support their claims, or who having left the university are
employed by an industrial entity with the aegis to further their claim,
but in the current environment the garage inventor's ideas can easily be
annexed by the corporations without a peep. Yet the idea does enter the
stream, but over time the garage inventor will lose the impetus to create.
Work without reward is foolishness. Free-enterprise is
dead.
QED,
Dr. Faustus Lord Ichimonji The
Weatherman Fearless Leader Luke Cage
The purpose of getting through the
gates is to allow for recognition of claim of origination for the
mechanics of a process supported by scientific evidence, which is what a
patent is. Hence we can think of the Patent Office as a library that
houses a virtual structure that references a hierarchy of processes and
the relationships between them. For example within the discipline of
mathematics we have numeric identities, variables, and operations which in
combination can be used to create a multitude of provable formulas, with
successive formulas reliant on predecessors for validity. Likewise are
patents ordered or chained together, as with Computers reliant on
preceding technologies (circuit boards, transistors, and switches), all
which terminate at their foundation which is electricity. This 'library'
can be inferred to exist, but the patent office does not yet exist as this
virtual scheme or body of knowledge. Therefore to reference technologies
in existence for comparison with a potential valid claim requires the
utilization of searches in an arbitrarily catalogued system. Because of
its ubiquity in computer games, and search engines some researchers have
veered from the term 'artificial intelligence' and supplanted it with
'machine learning' or 'cognitive systems.' Thus the threat exists that
patent searches are not sufficient to reference the entire catalogue of
knowledge without foreknowledge of the vagaries and direction of a
discipline. This hurdle can also be surmounted with a patent attorney who
in familiarity with process, and networking inherent in their discipline
should be able to conduct a more thorough search and completion of
secretarial duties.
Of patents there are two kinds: 1)a valid claim
and 2)an invalid claim. The former will progress through the system; the
latter will be expunged. To limit the number of invalid or frivolous
claims the PTO asks for a significant fee as a requisite to entry. [$1500
to start and the reported figure to fulfill all obligations necessary to
acquire a patent tops out at $70,000] This mechanism of accounting has the
flaw that while justifiably excluding the filing of those patents that are
frivolous, it also prevents the exposure of those claims that are valid,
yet the inventors lack the resources to have them recognized as such.
(continued in Part III)
Dr. Faustus Lord
Ichimonji The Weatherman Fearless Leader Luke Cage
Here are some comments to your 2
billion dollar question--despite that the complexity of the problem is
well beyond the purview of the FCC and thus this response is like many
other experiences of the times we enter, that is to say it is an exercise
for its own sake or that of argument.
At a cursory glance Steve
Balmer's July 8th letter to the employees of Microsoft implies that no
problem exists. Who can say or how can innovation be stifled if Microsoft
is to submit 2000 patent applications is 2004 alone?? Therein lies the
problem. The company whose ambition is to file just one patent is hindered
by the institutions--or lack of, their policies, cost, and
alternatives.
Lets eliminate these companies who claim to benefit
innovators and begin at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). If we
assume a business has five primary functions, i.e. security, secretarial,
accounting, public relations, and administration we can then correlate
these functions to their counterparts in the PTO.
Security in this
sense doesn't necessarily imply armed guards, but the controls within an
organization to ensure that it deals with the information that is its
specialty. For example, if the cashier's office at a University receives
an application for admissions, then the rerouting of that application to
its appropriate department is an instance of security. As such the PTO
lacks 'security.' Those people who control the entry of information are
not scientists, but paper-pushers/phone monitors who are unfamiliar with
the vagaries of the innovations they process and the language of science.
Thus the onus of getting in the door and routed to the proper forms is on
the innovator. Hence the small innovator must utilize his/her time
learning the structure of the PTO--a hurdle avoided by larger entities in
their capacity to hire patent attorneys whose specialization and training
is to know this structure and its language.
(continued in Parts II
and III)
Dr. Faustus Lord Ichimonji The
Weatherman Fearless Leader Luke Cage
Congratulations on joining the
blogosphere. This is an awesome idea, I hope more politicians follow your
advice. So with that in mind -
Sir, respectfully - and for the
reasons already cited here the digital broadcast flag is a great idea,
definitely a step in the right direction. That is provided your goal is to
speed up the transition to content delivery over the Internet and be able
to recycle all the spectrum reserved for digital television broadcasts for
more constructive uses.
History repeatedly reminds us that road to
widespread adoption is paved with the bodies of technologies who used
broadcast flags and whatnot -- do you actually think that little of
consumers to believe they will just take this sitting down like sheep?
I often wonder why some, if not all, DRM
technologies are in place. Let us look at the three industry which push
DRM more than anyone else.
The music industry is a multi-billion
dollar industry taking in vast amounts of revenue each year. They have
pushed DRM technologies on CDs and other forms of physical media
associated with them as well as DRM in software encryption methods. This
has accomplished the following: - Irritated the average consumer
because their standard CD-player can no longer play the disc. - Caused
damage to some consumer purchased hardware such as the Apple iMac in which
the disc was no longer removable and the device had to be serviced by the
manufacturer undoubtly costing the consumer more money. - Installed
software onto a uses machine without consent which catagorizes the
software as a worm and/or virus. What has the music industries software
failed to accomplish? It's goal. It has in no way stopped or even slowed
piracy. Anyone who wishes to pirate music can circumvent this technology
and it is usually accomplished within mere seconds. Furthermore, I ask who
is in direct competition with the RIAA? Why did companies such as AT&T
and Microsoft get slapped with anti-trust cases when an organization such
as the RIAA does not?
Then there is the movie industry. Very
similar to the music industry DRM wise. However, they did successfully
accomplish one thing. They are finally preventing some pirates by using
their night vision goggle system. Otherwise, they are failing at
everything. Now I ask again, where is their competition?
Software
piracy is a bigger scene than music and video piracy. If you can put it in
digital format than you can get it. Again, DRM is easily
circumvented.
The biggest problem with the whole piracy issue?
Price vs. content. A crappy movie still costs $9.00 to go see. A bad CD
still puts me $20.00 in the hole. A flawed operating system still costs me
$300. Cable TV still costs me $60/mo when I only watch 10 channels. An
internet connection costs $50/mo. Now I have access to all the
aforementioned items. Furthermore, all the aforementioned items are
overpriced, severely.
As for opening up the radio frequencies. I
used to live in a rural area and went crazy being stuck on dial-up.
Opening up broadcast frequencies to carry data which allows for network
connections will initiate a whole new market and create competition for
other network providers (DSL, Cable).
I belive it would be somewhat dificult to regulate
most of VoIP without imposing restrictions on other uses of the internet.
Although requirements may be set for "gateways" to the current phone
system. But then one could use a service in another country.
The
broadcast flag, in my opinion: will not be very effective for stoping
piracy. If one person copies and shares a copyrighted work over a network
like Kazza, others can copy and share it also.
Well, I
suppose I could gripe about the lack of quality programming on the air,
but that's not your jurisdiction. You're the chair of the federal
*communications* commission, not the federal *creativity* commission.
Though, I'd hate to see what would happen if creativity were
legislated.
You mention the white spaces there. If it's technically
feasible, I would say use them - AM may not be so feasible, but FM
certainly at minimum.
On that note, I think what should be done
here is to make it easier for J. Random Listener to perhaps get his own
station. It's currently too difficult for just anybody to get a broadcast
license.
(OK, I know, we don't want "just anybody" on the air. But
for those of us who are actually genuinely interested in running our own
broadcast, let's make it a bit easier on the paperwork and pocket book,
'k? )
Yeah, you can get a ham radio license, but ham radio is not
broadcast band, it's two way band - and you can't play music there
either.
Would you consider the experience of Japanese viewers
with DRM as a predictor of the American viewer's experience? Here is an
article from the Japan Times upon the subject: http://www.japantimes.com/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nb20040525a2.htm
. It would be useful if you asked a native Japanese how to interpret the
word "confusion" in the article.
In my opinion the government
should re-consider its position on things if the result of its position
when coupled with concerted action produces a detriment to citizens. This
state of affairs comes about when a law - for example the DMCA - combines
with a concerted action (DVD content scrambling system or CSS, for
example) to remove a traditional right, namely fair use. I believe the
government says "We did not remove fair use", and the DVDCCA says "We did
not remove fair use", but the result of the paired actions is that fair
use from DVD content doesn't exist. This state of affairs will be repeated
with broadcast digital television, should the broadcast flag mandate
remain as part of the specification. Since there's a fundamental
difference between purchased media and broadcast, in that broadcast
bandwidth is a commons, I believe the use of that commons must not involve
increasing restrictions on it, especially restrictions on fair
use.
Movie and tv companies
in the days of the VCR had their own vision of home video viewing -
DiscoVision, a time-expiring, play-only setup similar to the failed DIVX
format. They failed, and for good reason.
At every opportunity
since, they have proven that they cannot be trusted to use technology
properly.
Witness implanting Macrovision copy "protection" into
every retail VHS and DVD on the market. What has Macrovision protection
done, honestly? It certainly hasn't stopped piracy. What is HAS done is
deprived normal home users of their fair-use rights, especially now that
the DMCA disallows circumvention.
With the current system in place,
the following things are not allowed:
A parent cannot make a VHS
copy of their five year old's favorite tape/dvd, and then just make a new
one whenever the young child destroys the copy.
Likewise, I can't
back up my tapes/DVDs against the depredations of the family dog (twice I
have had to transplant the tape reels of two of my favorite movies from a
shattered-by-dog-tooth tape into a new VHS casing, an experience that is
NOT pleasant).
I can't capture a segment of Amadeus to
implant into a powerpoint presentation on classical music if I wanted
to.
These are all legal, fair-use behaviors - but the big industry
players insisted that I be denied these rights, and have worked and
lobbied to get the framework in place to deny me my rights. Oh, they'll
claim I still have those rights, but that I'm just not allowed to
use them... which is the same as locking someone up in a room, throwing
away the key, putting bars on the windows, then telling them they're free
to leave at any time.
The Broadcast Flag is the same behavior.
Industry execs will claim it's "only" to prevent piracy, or "only" going
to be used when the "rights owner" asks for it to be turned on. If you
believe that, I've got some oceanfront property in Kansas I'm selling real
cheap.
The fact is that, if this flag is around, they'll leave it
on by default. New episode of Friends on the night you're having your
anniversary, and you want to tape it for later? Sorry, it's
broadcast-flagged. Old movie on AMC you want to snag? Sorry, it's
broadcast-flagged.
I'd write more but this site has ludicrously
pathetic character restrictions. I suggest you ask over at the Lessig
blog.
I take serious issue with the fact that this is
only an escalated issue. Your governmental policy towards ONLY RECENTLY
attacking media outlets and radio stations over their "obscene"
programming is absurd. If you're finding it to have been obscene 2-3 years
ago, guess what? It was THEN. Why wasn't that a priority for your
administration at that point?
I guess my problem is why it took a
STUPID impetus like the SuperBowl to turn our media's airwaves into a
witchhunt for obscene material. Putting Clear Channel on trial for 3 year
old complaints is just lazy and reeks of desperation to find ANYTHING to
justify your and your constituents personal/religious opinions to a
citizenry that on the majority doesn't make the same decisions you do.
Reversing decisions on NBC in 2002 for use of the "F-word"? I realize
that this isn't the same as a something based on a guaranteed right to a
fair trial, because that's Double Indemnity.
It says that you can
quickly bounce back and bring a potential offense and act on it quickly.
You did this for the F-word incident, you did it for the Superbowl
incident. And for some reason, you decided that this became a situation of
"enough is enough" just recently. Why? I'd love to know.
I don't
think that "for children" is a good excuse. I think it's the
responsibility of the parent to find programming that would be considered
decent and wholesome. Not yours. If a parent is that truly concerned, they
shouldn't let their child watch television. That completely eradicates
LOTS of responsibilty on your part to dictate what's right and what's not.
Watching TV is not a given right. It's an elective process made on behalf
of consenting, financially responsible adults who purchase the equipment,
the services (cable/satellite/antenna), and decide the hours of which to
allow themselves and the children they are potentially responsible for
view and criticize what they are consuming. People that aren't following
this model are lazy and indigent, and NEED to be educated of the
importance of their decisions that they ignore.
I hope and pray
that there enough people like me out here who are willing to post opinions
on the problems with your administration that have RECENTLY come to
surface with your policy on obscenity. MAYBE there are enough of us to
allow you to see that we have an opinon on what you're doing to the
entertainment industry and loyal media consumers.
Hey Mike, So you're asking us about opening up
the spectrum between stations? I guess that's okay, I mean, it really
depends on what you intend to open up those white spaces to. I've never
really heard anyone in tech complain about the frequencies available to
them, so maybe you're operating under a false assumption that more digital
wireless devices would be created if only there were more frequencies
available?
Maybe we should allocate more spectrum to the services
we already have, like cell phones - I can't think of a single person who
has not used a cell phone and experienced a bad signal.
You asked
for $.02, so there's mine.
- RME
P.S. - This "indecency"
garbage is way out of hand. Free speech should be unregulated, that's what
makes it free.
Support open competition. RBOC's
have used the courts to retain the network edge and block competition.
Send a clear message that this won't be allowed. Open up the edge with new
technology. Support FTTH and work with anyone willing to build it. Support
opening frequencies for a wi-fi type of solution in expanding the
competition at the network edge.
Our country is quickly loosing
competitive advantage due to the bandwidth restraint caused by large
amounts of money being spent on turf protection rather than enhancing the
networks and competion.
There is a vision for the future that can
not arrive until the dinasours are either transformed or buried.
I am a tech savvy consumer (I am a software
programmer), in an appropriate target audience age-range (mid 20s) to
spend a LOT of money consuming various forms of media: music, movies,
cable tv, etc.
I have a 6 year old VCR and a couple of VHS
cassettes, and basic cable, no matter what the telemarketers push on
me.
Why? Why am I not buying up music CDs, and DVDs?
Because
the current economic climate makes me either a criminal for using media
the way I wish, or a stooge for paying for something which the media
industry will forcefully and intentiionally make incompatible in another 5
years.
I don't buy CDs because the RIAA has abandoned its mandate
to find and promote new and original music, and labels have abandoned
their role as reliable categorizers and selectors of content. Instead they
push fabricated bands, on CDs designed intentionally to thwart consumer
use with other digital media devices.
The same goes for the MPAA.
They are actively fighting technology that will benefit the consumer on
the implicit and dubious grounds that technological change will erode
their monopoly (huh, you think?).
And the same goes for cable tv.
They offer me 200 hectares of chaff with 2 blades of wheat for an
exorbitant sum, but refuse to allow me to purchase those 2 blades
individually (even at higher markup!). Thank god one of those blades is
CSPAN.
All the while they are all actively fighting against
(instead of WITH) disruptive technologies that allow me to find, consume,
and enjoy digital media.
So what do I do? I tune out, turn off, and
drop out of popular culture. There are many like me. That is not only bad
for ME, that is bad for our society, and our economy.
I'm not
saying that you or the FCC is responsible directly for the current
environment, however, the FCC should be our steward and if not actively
enforce, at the very least subtley engender an environment which benefits
the consumer of media and communications (otherwise why not just become
yet another trade group like RIAA and MPAA?). Meanwhile Asia, Korea, Japan
are going completely hog wild with new technology.
Please sir, do
not let the United States turn into the technological rural backwater of
the industrialized world, on your watch.
Indecency would be defined differently for every
person who was asked. That says to me that a government organization
should not be able to regulate it. Additionally, when the FCC gives out
fines for their rules, why aren't they subject to the same innocent until
proven guilty policy the rest of our law provide.
Unfortunately, your crusade
against so-called "indecency" on the airwaves has destroyed any
respectability you may have had in the eyes of myself and millions of
others who wish to have the freedom to choose what programs to watch and
listen to. Your FCC is a joke, a puppet of George Bush's religious agena,
and worst of all you're a hypocrite -- here are a couple choice quotes
from you prior to your position of FCC dictator:
"Government has
been engaged for too long in willful denial in order to subvert the
Constitution so that it can impose its speech preferences on the
public--exactly the sort of infringement of individual freedom the
Constitution was masterfully designed to prevent."
"We should
think twice before allowing the government the discretion to filter
information to us as they see fit."
And now, here you are on a
crusade against the likes of Howard Stern. You're a disgrace.
The FCC should be protecting our rights from
broadcasters, not the other way around. There are many instances in which
I've seen news that you have done so... however there are 2 areas in which
I disagree that you have:
1. Censorship: Simply put, the fines put
forth by the FCC for censorship, no: SELECTIVE censorship, are ludicrous
at best. The government should not be regulating, and I say this
laughingly, "indecency". Read the comments on this blog besides mine if
you don't believe me. That isn't the will of the people; it's the will of
the rich lobbyists. It should be a parents job to protect a child for
"indecency" and not the governments job to protect adults from it! It's
rediculous how if I watch a movie on TV, they need to cut it down to only
what's OK for the FCC.
2. The Broadcast Flag: Quite simply the
worst decision possible. How could you so blatantly infringe on consumer's
rights here? Of course that is rhetorical, we all know why. It's because
those lobbyists have you in their pocket. Why do you do it? Can't you see
that it's not the will of the people which you are sworn to protect? Is it
possible to be so cruel?
If you want to reach out to the tech community, go
to MIT and talk to some of the U.S.'s future engineers and innovators and
see what they think about shit like the broadcast flag and the DMCA.
You'll likely find out that the FCC and congress is handcuffing them
intellectually.
I, too, would like to
re-iterate points made perviously, if only to emphasize the support behind
the issues.
- The purpose of the FCC should be the protection of
the rights of the citizens of this country. Allocation of public resources
(broadcast spectrum) to private entities is unconscionable, and broadcast
flags are an unfair restriction on consumer's usage rights.
- As an
agency that should be for the public good, it is in the best interest of
the organization to steer clear of any activity that makes it look like a
partisan tool of the current adminstration. Selectively enforced
"indecency" fines, especially to broadcasters that have been critical of
the current administration, does not reflect well on the FCC. As for the
most eggregious example, I do not listen to Mr. Stern. I do not find his
often base humor entertaining, but I will stand by his rights and the
rights of his listeners to enjoy his program without attempts at
government cernsorship of his content.
Interesting article, from an
international perspective I would ask the following items: - Do you
need to use the spectrum? If so why? I think once those questions have
been answered the other ones like spectrum allocations become easier,
though it still wont stop people kicking up a stink
- Is spectrum
allocation about to become outmoded through the use of wideband wireless?
- Can Americans benefit from having an international open standard
that would allow consumers to benefit from a greater choice and cheaper
devices and help facilitate US tech companies play
internationally
I would argue yes, particularly if you look at the
benefits that the GSM standard has brought to European companies
Deregulation has not worked
out for the consumer it has only made the provider more money as they
charge more for the same product. Cable companies raise the price every
year, and sale you channels in packages instead of the channels you want.
They are monopolies in almost every town in america. So they charge what
they want due to no competition. Even though there is another cable
compnay in the next town. They won't go into that town to compete. It
finally took the FCC to give the City the right to approve or disapprove
Adelphia's rate hikes in Enterprise, AL when Time Warner is right there in
Daleville, Charter in Ozark, and Comcast in Dothan. They all conveniently
stay out of each others area. Why so they can rip the consumers off.
The Phone companies of course will not let you have another local
provider. ATT and MCI both provide unlimited local and long distance
plans, but the local Telephone Company doesn't let them come in to provide
service so you have to pay their exorbant price for local service.
Broadband service is even more interesting. You passed laws for
them to share lines to encourage competition in DSL. They didn't want to
lose customers have they spent the money on building the infrastructure to
another company. What did they do they decided not to build the
infrastructure. They don't build CO's or upgrade the rotting copper that
is in the ground.
Yet in Korea, Japan, and Sweden they are running
fiber optics straight to the home that will provide Telephone, HighSpeed
Internet Service, Video on Demand, Cable and all in one package.
On
the contrary we need more government regulation or another lawsuit against
these monopolies. Why is 1 Cable Co and 1 Phone Company allowed to be in
the town. They should be regulated if they are the only ones or their
should be competition. If not there needs to be an AntiTrust Suit brought
against them line AT&T and Microsoft. That is not a fair business
practice.
Chairman Powell, I am shocked and horrified at
your decision to start the forum. In truth, this is not a blog. It
is just another attempt by a political appointee to appear in touch
with average people. As you read through the comments, you will see
the same remarks you get from the federal register rule making
procedure, often from the same individuals (lawyers, lobbyers, and
hams). This is not a blog. It's a commercial for the FCC. I
recommend you not bother putting on pretenses of running a blog. Or, if
you are inclined to keep up this chirade, that you fully prepare to
engage the interent-fad-of-the-week. I suggest you also put up FCC
files using bittorrent P2P distribution technology, since that might
appeal to other constituencies. You might want to record your views as
MP3 files as well, since this might fool even more readers into
thinking you actually care about the needs of the public you pretend to
serve. You, sir, are a fraud. Don't waste any more tax dollars on
this effort. Instead, spend your time truly wasting money by keeping
the airwaves "decent" and free from the obscenities that everyone
hears on a daily basis in everyday life.
I am a business owner in the
computer industry. I understand the need to regulate certain frequencies
to allocate resources for police and military. However, I am troubled by
the censorship of the FCC. I understand that children should be shielded
from offensive material, however adults should be able to see whatever
they want. Specifically, why does our culture find violence much more
acceptable than sexual material? In addition, I am very worried about the
consolidation of media into the hands of a few huge corporations. This has
horrible consequences, such as lower quality and higher prices and all of
the other bad stuff associated with monopolistic behavior. Viacom violated
the FCC rules, and instead of being punished they just changed the FCC
rules. Who's interest are you looking after, the general public or the
elite?
I agree with you that
government should not regulate VOIP and other new technologies that
compete to replace traditional technologies. Consumers will determine of
VOIP will survive, not regulation. Number portability was the only key
regulation needed. I also think we should all should use the word "tax"
instead of "regulate", because that what it boils down to. Our government
needs to evaluate and embrace new technologies and see how it can cut
costs.
On DTV, I am concerned that Hollywood's lobbying to get the
digital broadcast flag will limit a consumers right to fair use and
unfairly tax the consumer with more expensive televisions, since the
manufacture nor Hollywood are going to pay for the additionally circuitry.
If Hollywood is concerned with their IP being copied, then they should not
sell it to broadcasters. Consumers want simple devices that provide a
better entertainment experience and I don't think the current direction
for DTV will provide that.
Let
the Commerce bureau bid out broadcast licenses at renewal time and there
would be plenty of graft to satisfy the puppeteers in Congress to
steal/divert to their own enrichment. Im sorry if you all loose your
jobs at the FCC, but its high time something concrete be done here,
perhaps you can go on the lecture circuit explaining how NOT TO RUN a
government office. It also might give the public the most inkling of sense
that the government is there to be OUR servant, not the other way
around.
Part 2 of 2 Lets look at just two examples that
I feel are exemplary of their mis-deeds. At one time, in the not so
distant past, the general order that governed the use of the RF spectrum
was the protection of life, safety and the protection of property. The
marine radio services grew out of this primacy, post the sinking of the
Titanic, and this 'golden rule" persisted as we developed public safety
communications that assist the safety of police and firefighters on a
daily basis. The great flap over the 800 mhz interference issues, a
corrupt Nexthell, bribes, and the ever present circling flock of
law-vultures has allowed Nexthell to continue to disrupt licensed public
safety systems ationwide, putting the lives of our public safety personnel
in jeopardy. This would of never stood in the "old days". The FCC is to
blame for not ordering the immediate shutdown of interfering Nexthell
sites, period. Let the vultures thrash it out afterwards, but the safety
of everyone depends on the efficient communications of stations in the
public safety radio services. The events of 9.11 make this all the more
important and urgent. The second, and undoubtably more obvious case is
the ramming of BPL, "Broadband over powerlines" down the throats of
everyone, with no regards to the destruction of usable HF spectrum, so
power companies can add another bill to the already over burdened
consumer. If indeed BPL was, as has been stated, a method to deliver high
speed Internet to RURAL customers, who granted, thirst for this access,
where are the "must build" rules? I see BPL as another cable TV industry,
where after the prime customer base was buiilt out to, they forgot all
about servicing the remaining 10% of the most distant locations where the
profit factor wasn't as high. Remember when cable was commercial free? An
extension of tv into places where it wasn't available? I do, and now all I
see is 200 channels of commercials and re-runs of re-runs. If cable had
been held to the "must build" standard, the whole issue of BPL would be
moot, as an already built out industry would be bringing high speed access
to those rural areas, now claimed to be the beneficiaries of this flavor
of political largesse. So lets bring some sanity to the mess.. Let the
NTIA do frequency assignments on a scientific, engineering basis, put it
all on line, and dispose of the corrupt frequency coordinator/extortion
system for land mobile for example number one.
Split- Part 1 of 2 Its been painfully apparent
the FCC has sold us out, lock, stock and barrel. It's actions in
"selling" a comodity, the airwaves, that incidently bleong to ALL peoples
of this earth, and something they have no more right to sell than air or
water, shows the only thing that matters is the corporate greed factor.
(And YES, I know it was a Congressional stipulation, but that does not
make it any moe right) At one time, the FCC protected the spectrum, and
as a 30+ year veteran of the radio industry myself, I reluctantly have
called for the complete elimination of the FCC as a government entity in
toto. I say this with great apprehension, but a time comes when it
becomes apparent, that their continued existance is detrimental to the
very spectrum resource and public interest.
Why is it that the FCC is willing to "clean up" the
airwaves of all the sexual content in order to "protect our children", and
yet at anytime during the battle in Iraq, I could turn on CNN, MSNBC or
Fox News and see a cruise missle drop on a building in Baghdad killing
hundreds of people? Is sex so detrimental to our children, that they can't
be aware of it's existance in the world, but unjust murder be broadcast as
if it's part of the latest reality show? I ask you Michael Powell to
re-examine you own priorities and morals and decide if you are concerned
about the right things. Stop parenting for us, we will do just fine. I
have an esier time explaining to my kids about sex than I do about the
killing of another human being.
As a small business owner, I am all in favor of
deregulation. However, the FCC seems at times to confuse "deregulation"
with "ignoring its own regulations". The former creates a level playing
field. The latter tilts the playing field to the advantage of technology
providers who can’t or won’t play fair.
A case in point is the
“fostering” (your own words, Chairman Powell) of powerline broadband
technology. The FCC has turned a blind eye toward the well-documented
interference of powerline broadband with existing primary uses of the HF
and Low VHF radio spectrum. The FCC has circumvented its own internal
procedures by funneling interference complaints to the Office of
Engineering and Technology rather than Enforcement Bureau. OET has not
resolved a single interference complaint, nor has it even formally
acknowledged the receipt of complaints. It’s simply not set up to.
The net effect of this is bad for the technology. In its current
state, powerline broadband is a flawed technology. Not only does it
interfere with other spectrum users, it is easily interfered with by legal
relatively low-power transmissions by licensed users. Powerline broadband
providers have thus far been unable to successfully engineer working
solutions to either interference problem; the only approach that
successfully removes the interference is to shut the system off entirely.
Who will subscribe to a technology that is subject to shutoff, or whose
throughput drops to near zero when a radio transmitter is used nearby? In
its current state, this technology is not sufficiently robust to be
commercially viable. Broadband technology should be, with an appropriate
nod to the operators of this website, “always on”.
By ignoring the
interference problem, the FCC is disincentivizing providers from
correcting a promising technology’s real-world flaws. The Commission seems
to think that using the carrot without the stick is good for the
technology. In reality, all it does is keep the technology from being
developed to its full potential.
I too am concerned about the
increased involvement of the FCC in the public airways. I don't think it's
the job of the FCC to add more bloated government regulations to mass
media and have a bureacrat decide what and what not can be seen by
citizens of this free country.
It seems contrary to the beliefs of
our forefathers and writers of the constitution that censorship be a
federally funded practice. The freedom of speech and the freedom of
expression is the corner of any free democracy, even if some find this
speech or expression offensive. Yet this important value does not seem
valued (or at least as viewed as something critical to our democracy) with
the current leadership of the FCC. Why?
Time Warner Cable wants to charge me for $25,000 to
install cable TV
I live in upstate NY and although both cable
companies Time Warner Cable and Cablevision are both nearby, and (all my
neighbors except for 20 homes) have broadband options.
We are
between 2 towns and 2 cable companies, both cable companies
nearby.
TWC wants to charge me over $25,000 (US dollars) for CABLE
installation. They also cant get my address right, neither the town nor
the zip code. There is not another area left in the country with this
problem!! I live in Highland NY, with zip code 12528. The houses
with addresses on Swartekill Road numbered greater than 300 have Time
Warner Cable/ Road Runner. The houses with addresses under 200
have Cablevision/Optimum online. Those of us between 200 and 400 on
Swartekill Rd have no CABLE TV (for 3 decades) and no chance of getting
DSL either. Survey's done by Time Warner are now over $25,000; but they
are sent to wrong address and list our town (200 - 300 Swartekill Road)
incorrectly. TWC insist we are in Town of Esopus at zipcode 12429. Our
correct town is Highland NY with zipcode 12528. Would you accept a
survey result of $25,000 and hand over that much money to a company
that can't even straighten out their customer database, and have the
addresses correct? Lastly, because our addresses are incorrect in their
(TWC) database our are requests for service are not being counted
correctly - not being counted at all! In fact, when I call TWC for
service they insist that I am not in there area. It takes several
minutes to convince their rep that this is TWC area. I am sick of this
conversation. For 6 years I have been calling TWC every month
and getting no where. Everybody else can get high speed for free
installation or $59 installation charge, Why do I have to pay $25,000
installation charge? and then have my address in the wrong town and
zipcode yet. I still on dialup - probably forever.
This is
clearly a case of government regulation gone wrong. Cablevision has
informally told me over the phone that they would like to build cable
in my area and absorb the cost (no mention of any money, not
$25,000) but that they cannot because they would need a
franchise. Who would create a franchise for 20 customers?
Will the Extra digital channels that each
television station own have special programs, or the same programming?
They could air Public access programs as Dishnetwork & cable do. This
makes more sense to me.
I am pleased to see a
tough stand against on air profanity and bad language on commercial radio
and television stations! Thank you for providing the necessary leadership
to the FCC that is required for controll of the public
airways.
tibor_g_balogh
| POSTED: 07.10.04 @13:47 | I rated this blog: [5]
Mr. Powell:
This should be the litmus test
of every decision you make: How does it benefit the consumer? Does it
facilitate greater choices and freedoms? Does it facilitate higher quality
services?
Recently the 3rd US Court of Appeals in Philadelphia
blocked FCC regulations "that would have allowed companies to own more
radio and television stations in the same market." (Seattle Times, June
25, 2004).
You speak of controlling monopolies, but your actions
seem to do the opposite. Clear Channel is a monopoly. Regulations should
be set up so that small radio stations can compete against it, instead of
being swallowed up by it. What makes this nation great is the ability of
the indvidiual voice to speak, and the plurality of our culture.
Monopolies like Clear Channel silence new voices and new art forms in
favor of the bottom dollar.
In February 2003, you pushed measures
that would scale back some of the competition facilitated by the 1996
Telecommunications Act. Large monopolies like SBC were no longer required
to lease their lines to smaller companies. This had a huge impact on
smaler companies, as they would need much greater capital to implement the
infrastructure that would allow them to compete with monopolies. This
resulted in a reduction of choice of service for the consumer.
You
are now trying to push a measure pressed by the FBI to allow the
government to spy on its citizens by rewiring the internet to make this
possible. This is America, the land of the free, the home of the brave.
This is not communist Russia, or George Orwell's society in 1984. Or is
it? Eliminating freedoms for Americans in the name of "The War on Terror"
is a sorry excuse for the ultimate motive of giving government more power.
Who can guarantee that these overreaches of power will not one day fall
into the wrong hands?
Now as far as using the unused TV spectrum
and giving it to wireless devices: I do agree with the FCC push to do
this. Home networking and personal communication should take priority over
this aging one-way technology.
Thank you for listening. I hope the
next time you are faced with a choice, instead of listening to the
political hoopla of special interest that surrounds you, that you remember
the ultimate mission to protect the freedoms, choices, and rights of all
Americans. This, Mr. Powell, should be your legacy.
I'm growing very concerned
from what I've seen in Washington lately. How is that you and the FCC
continue to use double standards with respect to indecency? Why is Stern
being fined and Oprah not? What do you consider indecent? If you and the
FCC had your way, I'll bet anything negative posted about you or the Bush
administration would be considered indecent. Why don't you clarify some of
this for us AO users so we can understand the FCCs view on Oprah vs.
Stern. Is it because Oprah is beloved by the people and you think Stern is
not? I know millions of listeners would probably beg to differ w/ you on
that one. Also, how many kids are actually listening to Stern at 6AM on
their way to school? Probably not too many unless their parents are
letting them do so. Don't you think it should be my right to decide what I
want to listen to?
Please help us to understand the FCC and its
polically driven decisions!
In reading many of the
commentaries posted on this site, I agree that the airways are a precious
resource owned by the public, not by the broadcasters. For many years,
people in this country have enjoyed free television broadcasted over the
airways. The new DTV broadcast flag, lobbied into creation by Hollywood
mega-media conglomerates, begs the question, "if broadcasters are allowed
to control access to the public airways owned by the people, and allowed
to block certain content on that airway, what do the people get out of
this?" Its one thing for Hollywood to make their billions playing movies
at big screen movie houses across the country, which have been contracted
specifically for that purpose. With the DTV broadcast flag, Hollywood is
about to restrict public access to public airways and Hollywood has no
contract with the people of this country. It has no exclusive rights to
block public airways created for the people and paid for by the people.
When Congress passed the Telecom Act of 1995, Section 706 of the
Act gave FCC the power to create new law where access to advanced
communications for "all Americans" is concerned. This power has been
ignored. Now its time to enact new law that keeps DTV access free and
holds the industry open for growth to all Americans. Giving licensed DTV
broadcasters the broadcast flag, moves into monopolization of access
equipment and blocked access to an advanced communications airway owned by
all Americans. This is not a right that licensed commercial DTV
broadcasters are privy to. They are merely custodians of DTV airways, not
the owners. FCC serves as regulator and gatekeeper concerning access to
public airways.
We are about to enter a new era in media
communications, which has the potential to create thousands of new
businesses and millions of new jobs, made possible in part by the coming
DTV industry boom. It is the right of all Americans to participate and
prosper in that boom. New laws protecting our nation's free airways,
preserve free enterprise and free commerce for all Americans. Free
enterprise is a cornerstone of our nation and its posterity. The DTV
broadcast flag stains free enterprise because it promotes an alternate
digital piracy paradigm; the piracy, theft, and ransom of a public owned
digital highway.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely
yours,
G. Snyder President of a Wireless Development
SME Tempe, Arizona
I know this a little off subject. But I would like to see
some form of communication either RF/Satellite or whatever that the
consumer can use license free. My thoughts are that if we could place a
small RF transmitter or WIFI unit on various items, these items could be
tracked over long distances. The benefits should be reduced home
owner/renters insurance premiums and we get thes useless thieves out of
our communities. I believe a communication method that would work for a
range of 40-60 miles would be suffiecient. the devices could be encoded
with owner specific information including location. Law enforcement's job
would also be made much easier and we the victims could finally get some
help.
muskateer10
| POSTED: 07.10.04 @12:06 | I rated this blog: [5]
I recently saw a panel of broadcasters on C-Span
talking about how consumers are demanding digital broadcasts. I just don't
see it being demanded. It looks like a consumer electronics driven
agenda...that will hurt the consumer when they have to buy an adapter or
new television.
I would only consider mandatory digital
broadcasting favorable to consumers if there's an option to allow the
consumer to select the broadcast channels they desire and pay only for
those channels and eliminating the high cable rates that I'm currently
paying...when 88% of the channels are of no concern to my
family.
Chairman Powell, I have a suggestion that provides
a "Digital Tool" that would allow censorship without government
intervention.
A big improvement over the "V chip". I call it
the "WiFi chip" ;-)
1) In the digital video standard, allow an area
in which a voluntary "serial number" can be placed by producers of content
(commercials included).
2) The "serial number" is totally voluntary
and can be filled in if the producer chooses. The "serial numbers" are
issued by the FCC to the producers if they choose to fill the "serial
number" in.
3) The FCC provides the "serial number" database to any
group who wishes to provide a censorship service to the public. This could
be a commercial service group or a charitable or religous group.
4)
TV industry builds a WiFi TV that allows users to subscribe (for free or
for a fee) to the censor that best reflects their moral values.
5)
The "Smart" TV identifies content by the "serial number" (or lack of a
"serial number" because it is voluntary) and uses WiFi to contact the
approptiate censor to get a thumbs up or thumbs down to decide if the
content can be viewed.
6) The "Smart TV" owner chooses who they
would like to use as their censor. The government just keeps track of the
"serial numbers" and each group decides what is acceptable and what is not
acceptable for the people subscribing to their service!
Sir, thank you for opening
this line of communication.
I am extremely distressed by the
recent actions of the FCC with regard to indecency. In particular, the FCC
appears to be unfairly persecuting Howard Stern. I drive my young children
to school each morning. When the children are in the car we simply don't
listen to Stern. I would assert that anyone that is offended by the Stern
Show can simply turn it off or listen to something else. The fact is that
Howard is funny with a capital F. Moreover, I would assert that since the
Stern program is a morning radio show, very few unsupervised children are
exposed to this material.
Its simply not right for the FCC to
impose their morals on the rest of us. Moreover, there is apparently a
double standard in play with regard to the Stern show.
I would
appreciate it if you would address this
issue.
There is high quality inovation, and then there is
low quality inovation. The FCC should set standards for the inovation
process for communications systems. Software for these inovations should
be developed under a process like RTCA DO-178B. The programs should have
well written development plans. Standards should be set for documentation
of new inovation submittals. Hardware should go through a formal
development planning, design, and qualification process with formal
documentation. Without these steps, the process is much less likely to be
repeatable, and more likey to be error prone. A formal safety analysis of
the new system should be done as well.
Media
consolidation has created a toxic system of sucking profits from
newspapers and tv stations by sending the same canned content to every
outlet. Truly local reporting is minimal.
1. In smaller markets,
there's nobody home at Clear Channel stations after 7 p.m. Here's an
example of the disastrous results of such pure profit-seeking:
At
1:30 on a cold January night, a train containing hundreds of thousands of
gallons of toxic anhydrous ammonia derails in Minot, N.D. Town officials
try to sound the emergency alert system, but it isn't working. Desperate
to warn townspeople about the poisonous white cloud bearing down on them,
the officials call their local radio stations. But no one answers any of
the phones for an hour and a half.
According to The New York Times,
one resident died after inhaling the gas and more than 300 people were
treated at hospitals -- some partially blinded -- and pets and livestock
are killed.
Where were Minot's disc jockeys on Jan. 18, 2002? Where
was the late-night station crew? As it turns out, six of the seven local
radio stations had recently been purchased by Clear Channel
Communications, a radio giant with more than 1,200 stations nationwide.
Economies of scale dictated that most of the local staff be cut: Minot
stations ran more or less on auto pilot, the programming largely dictated
from farther up the Clear Channel food chain.
Who'll sound the
alarm in the event of a local disaster?
2. Mr. Powell, there would
have been no rocknroll if local djs such as Wolfman Jack and Murray the K
hadn't spun the discs they liked, rather than "How Much Is That Doggie in
the Window?" that topped the charts.
Delivering crap to maximize
profits undermines the concept of a truly American arts culture. Nothing
can seep into the stream because there's only top-down
programming.
Create opportunities for independent broadcasting,
tiny web radio stations (without the crippling from CARP fees), encourage
local ownership in the name of an informed citizenry.
American
culture needs a chance to slip its leading edges into the
mix.
Media conglomerates that treat local stations solely as
ad-serving cash cows do not serve our nation's interest.
(p.s.
Cialis ads are far more embarrassing and offensive than a glimpse of
breast or a four-letter word. Will you fine the pharaceutical companies,
too?)
"Broadcasters, however, claim these unused
channels as "their" spectrum."
The spectrum belongs to the US
public, it is a precious natural resource that should be protected. The
FCC should encourage and enable experimentation in the available wireless
spectrum.
Regulation is necessary to the extent that we should
protect the interests of small business over big business, mainly because
smaller companies need the protection from larger more powerful companies.
Good luck.
On an issue of lesser interest to the general
public, I am curious why it is taking so long to revamp the amateur radio
service to allow no code operators access to the HF bands? It seems like
this would be a relatively easy restructuring to accomplish. Over the last
4 years there has been a notable decrease in the number of operators. To
survive ham radio needs a relaxing of operator code requirements.
I would like to know why it
is that only after Howard Stern started criticizing the Bush
administration that he started recieving FCC/Indecency fines. Furthermore,
I would like to know why it is that you have not clearly defined what is
and what is not indecent. The fact that you are trying to squealch people
such as Stern from voicing an extremely valid opinion has solidified my
decision to vote for John Kerry this comming election and to never vote
for a Republican again.
Thanks for the uneven enforcement of the
law, Chris Hanley
Most technology choices for filling TV 'holes' will
present the sort of near-far interference problems that got Nextel into
trouble with Public Safety. One option that wouldn't cause such problems
would be to authorize wideband satellite transmissions across the VHF/UHF
bands. Because satellites are uniformly far away (22000 miles) the
interference level can be precisely controlled everywhere to ensure that
it is below the threshold of TV reception. But because the signals are
wideband in nature they would have sufficient redundancy to ensure that
they could be received despite local TV transmissions (UWB-like). The FCC
could license a nationwide TV service with a handful of channels capable
of being received on portable devices - imagine the networks/CNN/PBS being
available uniformly like DARS is - meeting FCC's universal service
objectives and aiding national emergency alerting.
CHAIRMAN POWELL: With the recent debout of high
defination tv and the premature selling of the airwaves how do you explain
the fact that the "new" channels don't carry as far and millions will lose
their present coverage plus pay thousands or hundards more in the
process?? I have a 10 year old tv with up to 1080 lines of coverage and my
tv gives a BETTER picture than the "new" high definations ones and it
seems some people want to cause the awe and shock effect of something
"new". As an example I can receive 8 different stations with a regular
outside antenna from 32 to 84 miles away and it is FREE. So do you think I
will rush out to buy "new" and spend BIG BUCKS to purchase a LESS better
tv and then pay more yet cause I can't get the channnels anymore and have
to use cable or satalitte PlLUS in a few years they will release the TRUE
HIGH DEFINATION that JAPAN and some other countries have had for years
already???I know by selling the tax paid airwaves you now are in a rush to
push the inferior "new" technology so you can cover your own rear
ends. Kind of reminds me of the so called deregulation of phones and
the LARGE MESS we have now! And I am still waiting for the cheaper costs
and better service that was promised.
Some regulation of new technology is required if
the old technology is not to be compromised. You seem to be against
regulation, even when it has been shown to be needed. Unregulated airways
produce chaos.
Case in point is Broadband over Power Line (BPL)
technology which has been shown again and again to interfere with older
wireless technologies. Of course, the people wanting to implement BPL are
powerful elecrtric companies, and they are friends of the adminstration.
And it looks like BPL has a green light from the FCC regardless of the
cost to other services.
Boeing Company's comments: Boeing told the
FCC that Commission-proposed interference mitigation techniques "are
inadequate to protect safety of life aeronautical HF communications
services." The aircraft manufacturer urged the FCC to "carefully
investigate these issues" before adopting rules to authorize BPL networks
in spectrum used by aeronautical HF radio services. (ref. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/24/1/?nc=1)
But
complaints of interference from BPL are not even being sent to the
enforcement bureau as they should be. But then of course, FCC has decided
not to shut down BPL for interference - as they would any other source of
RF interfernce - because, well because of favoritism.
A couple of real simple
points from a telecom guy:
Congrats for keeping FCC's hands off
VOIP. I have 2 Vonage lines that have way more features than Verizon would
give me and took my monthly phone bill from $150 to $35/month. Ultimately,
this will will help the overall productivity of the US economy.
DO
NOT force the ILEC's to share their cable plant with CLECS!! If it was
YOUR money and you spent millions to install copper or fiber, only to turn
around a day later and be forced to sell, at cost the use of your copper
or fiber to the CLEC, you would be very unhappy.
Wireless: I think
WiFi is a God-given right, it should be free, it should be everywhere,
just like FM radio. How does one make money? I hate McDonalds, but I'll
eat there lousy food just so I can check my email.
chainbucket
| POSTED: 07.09.04 @19:54 | I rated this blog: [5]
Chairman Powell:
Congrats once again for
seeking effective ways to get real world insights hopefully for the
benefits of the People by the People.
I think some back to basics
serious soul searching by the FCC would be even more useful here. I would
ask you to find out why did the USA fails at recognizing the GSM
opportunity when it came out on the cellular front. As a result the USA is
not leading the world in this technology area. I suspect the same is bound
to happen on broadband deployment. My diagnostic is that the USA is
blindsighted by this ideology of the deregulated markets apparently opened
to the benefits of the entrepreneurs. The reality as you well know is
money and lobbyes with deep pockets and lots of lawyers. Spectrum bullies
and likes. The myth of the entrepreneurs is just a myth when you start
dealing with real complex problems like deploying broadband, VOIP or HDTV.
I sincerely hope you have learnt your mistakes on this BPL crap in regards
to the dangers of deregulated markets.
I think the FCC could be
financially more independent and not subjet to the powerful lobby forces,
selling off the licensed spectrum and pretending to open up unlicensed
spectrum. Why would you if the cash cow is selling off spectrum and
getting a good cut on it? An FCC appointed watchdog would be useful.
Staying away from ideologies of deregulation (or regulation) would also
help effective governance. People are getting a whole lot
smarter.
Until you solve the basic problems, blogging is not going
to help you a whole lot. It may give you the illusion that it does, but it
will remain an illusion. Could that be what you are really seeking? People
need effective governance for the People by the People, not by the Lucky
for the Few. Good luck in altering course.
The FCC might consider
focusing on service as a priority. Most carriers (cable, phone, satellite,
etc.) are huge, inefficient bureaucracies that deliver poor service at
high cost. Because there are no real alternatives for most people, we all
live with it as best we can. (I am thrilled to be rid of SBC, and I will
do my utmost never to be be a customer again. But when my choice was an
AT&T or MCI, that was no choice, as they are no different.) Perhaps
the FCC could come up with a formula that rewards the established carriers
based on service levels and pricing advantages -- in other words,
providers who meet or exceed meaningful thresholds for affordability and
customer service would have to subsidize new competitors less. That would
spur competitin among old carries and help foster new ones, whileletting
the truly unfixable big carriers die off, which is a natural and necessary
result when a company ossifies.
Consolidation -- whether on
technology, provision, or content -- is bad, and boy do we see it in
today's media delivery and offerings.
The FCC has a responsibility
to ensure that services based on public property be excellent, and that
monopolies such as cable and telephone either be truly opened up (i.e.,
lines don't belong to specific providers, separating the transmission from
the service) or forced to offer excellent, affordable service (if we must
keep transmission and service bundled). Right now, we have bad monopolies
and oligarchies protected in their current bad state.
I appreciate your reaching
out. I believe you need to rethink some of the basic assumptions in this
discussion, since the current situation is a highly artificial one, in
which government-sactioned and -protected monopolies (and somewhat
less-protected derivative firms) spend all their time jockeying against
each other and ignoring the consumer, whom they can take for granted due
to lack of true competition.
First, too much time has been wasted
on internal fights with the networks and equipment makers on technology
and deployment when it comes to HDTV. The broadcasters happily took the
extra spectrum and then let it lie fallow. They should be forced to
release it very soon if they don't start broadcasting the technology. Why
should they be allowed to squander public resources. I would not require
them to broadcast HDTV, but in return for that release, I would not let
them keep spectrum they are not using. Also, since most people get their
TV via cable, does over-the-air HDTV broadcast really matter? Is the
promotino of HDTV really a public matter to begin with? Let broadvcasters
rent the additional spectrum if HDTV makes sense for their business.
There's also the issue of having to equip both TV sets and cable boxes for
HDTV, adding huge cost. It makes more sense to let manufacturers offer
HDTV boxes that can connect to TVs and cable/satellite boxes, so people
aren't buying multiple HDTV tunerswhen they need just one. The government
should determine the standard and enforce it, so the equipment makers and
broadcasters don't argue endlessly and ensure nothing happens.
This
kind of issue repeats itself in high-speed Internet access, cable and
satellite TV service, and in phone service. The industries have quibbled
for years to delay anything meaningful. It's been smaller companies that
made DSL happen, for example, which spurred cable modem service and then
major-carrier DSL service. What we have are terrible major providers (SBC,
Comcast, and so on) that most customers are forced to use because they
have exclusive licenses or face no real competition. These big companies
only got their position through government protection, so it is entirely
fair to ask them now to subsdize the competition.
As the owner and operator
of several small market radio stations in Georgia, North Carolina and
South Carolina, I am concerned about the burden the FCC's recent proposal
to require radio broadcasters to record their programming.
While
there are legitimate claims and concerns about the homogenization of radio
in many of the larger markets, most of the small market radio stations
serve their communities very well. They must in order to survive. All of
our stations, and hundreds of others in the small towns of America, are
there every day providing local news, community information, local sports
and coverage of events important to that community.
I am not aware
that any indecency complaints having been filed against small market
stations. However, the rules being proposed will create the greatest
burden to the stations which haven't created the problems.
As the
retail base in our small towns has changed and many stations have to
operate on the same or less revenue, our stations operate with fewer
people and resources. Despite this economical fact, we continue to provide
the level of service called for in our public license.
The larger
market stations have the resources and personnel to enact these
requirements with little impact on their operations. Requiring the small
stations to do creates a financial and personnel burden that can
negatively impact the station's ability to continue serving its community
at its present level.
I would welcome you and any of the other
Commissioners to come visit one of our markets and spend some time at one
of our stations and realize that radio in our towns is an entirely
different world that the stations who put indecent programming on the
airwaves. You would be pleased and proud what this industry can mean to
the quality of our small towns.
Please consider us in your
discussions and the possibility of exempting stations in the smaller
markets from this burdensome requirement.
I congratulate you sir for
opening your ears to the general public through this conduit! As others
here have noted this mechanism of direct input to government officials is
something that all of Washington should consider and implement.
No
one on the BLOG has mentioned this yet, but I must register my strong
concern with the FCC's effort to brazenly implement Broad Band over
Powerline (BPL) internet access - flying in the face of some very serious
and significant interferance issues to vital radio services. The public
safety, the public's access to over the air media, and the opportunity to
advance radio/wireless technology will be compromised if BPL in its
present form is installed throughout the nation. Other countries have
banned this technology - we should appreciate their concerns and only
implement this technology once the intereference concerns are adequately
addressed.
As much as I get my news online and as much as I love the open
discussions on blogs, I have to say that the Internet is still a limited
resource and should not be used to justify loosening media ownership
rules. Allowing consolidation will suck the oxygen out of our
democracy.
If you are truly interested in innovation, you
wouldn't be in favor of lifting ownership restrictions on media outlets.
Homeginization of media, quite frankly, discourages media innovation as
all media sources then move towards the lowest common denominator, the one
that is least risky and least costly while providing adequate returns. The
fact that no innovation will occur if Clearchannel, News Corp., The
Tribune Co., Viacom, and a handful of other companies own all the media
outlets clearly doesn't concern you. Furthermore, innovation will not
flourish in an environment wehre broadcasters control and direct
development of a closed platform, where they claim that the platform is
"theirs" and requires a "broadcast flag."
Market failure such as
monopoly is the justification for government regulation. Therefore, there
was a need for government regulation in 1984, 1996 and still today. Why
would the telecommunications industry need or want to revert back to an
Oligopoly? You say there is competition, where is it? VOIP is not a viable
alternative today. Wireless, the RBOC’s own the major wireless companies
in the US. Innovation and technology should be the key drivers. How much
innovation was out there prior to 1984 or even 1996? I can remember when I
had to lease my telephone from AT&T. I can remember when there was not
an alternative to SBC. Giving complete power to a few companies will not
drive innovation and technology. SBC, Qwest, Verizon and Bell South are
natural monopolies in their regions. Yes, in the recent past, there has
been some competition from CLEC’s but the majority of the end users in
this country utilize the RBOC’s services. Eliminating UNE-P creates a
natural barrier to entry for the small CLEC’s in this country. I know that
the government isn’t really concerned about this because all that I have
read about is the RBOC’s, AT&T and MCI. What I am concerned about is
the little guy who will be put out of business due to natural barriers to
entry. Why does the government continue to forget about them? Please do
what is right not based on lobbyist but the industry as a whole.
Telecommunications has gone a long way since 1996 and a decline in
innovation will take place if the power is given back to the RBOC’s. Their
argument that if they didn’t have to lease their lines at wholesale rates
then they would be able to invest in new technology doesn’t hold water.
They do make a profit off of those lines they lease.
I have felt all along that
the concept of unbundled local loops, interconnection and UNE-P et. al.
was a terrible way to introduce competition into the marketplace. Firstly,
it penalizes the company who made the initial capital investment and then
still provides a lopsided competitive environment, look at the BOCs rates
for their own DSL services versus the wholesale rate for the same
service.
In my mind their are two types of competitors in this
market.
The Infrastructure companies who own the access to the
customer. This is the ILEC, the CableCo, Cellular, Power, WiFi companies.
These companies, or these portions of companies, should be forced to
compete against one another based on the merits of their infrastructure.
They should be stand-alone entities and provide their infrastructure to
all comers with no preferential treatment. They would compete and the
company with the most efficient use of investment capital who can still
provide a high quality infrastructure will win.
The second type of
company will be the Service company. These companies would compete based
on the type of service offered; video, voice, cellular, Internet et. al.;
the features of their offering; their price; and their quality. They would
all need to use the infrastructure from one or more of the infrastructure
companies.
In this way we have competition and innovation on two
planes with requisite reward for the winners on each plane. Where the two
companies reside under a single corporate umbrella, as many do today,
those companies will need to be regulated to insure they offer equal
access to all companies looking to use their infrastructure and there is
no cross-subsidation of the service business from the infrastructure
business. The long term goal should be complete seperation of these
businesses much the same way it has taken place in the oil and gas
business or the electricty business.
I believe this gives us a
workable, sustainable infocom infrastructure driven by competition and
rewarding innovation, both on the infrastructure and the services side of
the table.
Whether you agree with Powell or not, I think it's
an idea long overdue to reach out and connect directly with the people -
kudo's for making an effort that 99.9999999999% of the rest of the people
in D.C. would never even think about doing.
By the way - I like the
move you made with Nextel in the freq swap.
The cellular industry is like the software sector.
Propriety today; compatible tomorrow, especially when it looks like only
the ILECs will be cell providers. Why has the Administration and the FCC
sided with both media conglomerates and the BOCs? You realize we have
affordable DSL today due to Northpoint and Covad. BOCs had been sitting on
the technology for years. When will be actually see FTTx? The FCC and the
State PSCs have pandered to the ILECs for years on the Promise of FTTx. In
Pennsylvania, Verizon is being sued for $2B by citizens who are tired of
being bilked. If the BOCs had spent less time fighting the Telecom Act at
the same time that the FCC had been enforcing it, be would steps ahead of
the world in broadband penetration. If a non-facilities CLEC like Z-Tel
can introduce a great Unified Messaging platform, why haven't any of the
BOCs done so? Because NO innovation comes from CUBE-WORLD. How about you
Commissioners actually sit down and read the Telecom Act of 1996 - the act
that the BOCs helped pass - and enforce it before we have another telecom
implosion. BTW, why did you take the Unbundling discussion off the table
yesterday? Your feet dragging is NOT helping the industry. Stop cashing
Bell checks and do your job over there.
While you are in SV, talk
to some CLECs and ISPs who provide great service and good paying jobs and
only ask that the rules apply to everyone across the board fairly. The FCC
fined the Big 4 Telcos almost $1B since 1996 - and the ILECs gladly paid
it, because for every $1M in fines, they stifled competition and
overbilled their customers to make up for it. But hey that's the American
way. Just ask GW's pal Mr. Lay.
Since
you've got privacy set on your AlwaysOn Network Zaibatsu - I thought I'd
use this comment field to ask yah a few questions about digital
convergence and broadband.
I know allot of attention is put towards
getting broadband into people's homes - but I was wondering if there's
anything the government should do about all that un-used fiber. It seems
like every telco out there has 100's of miles of fiber in the ground, yet
only about 3% of it is turned on.
Obviously they're doing that to
keep the prices high.
Isn't there some way you can 'force' these
telcos into turning on their fiber and thereby lowering the costs of
bandwidth. Afterall - what's the point of getting broadband (which today
is really only mid-band) if it's so expensive?
Is this the same Chairman Powell who in the name of
diversity, open source policymaking, and competition, voted to hand over
overwhelming control of our media outlets to a handful of corporate buyers
(like Clear Channel, with its 50%+ ownership of radio stations)? The same
FCC chairman whom the Appeals Court rapped for giving away the public
heritage? I can't wait to see what's coming next. Now I have a front row
seat via AO! Thanks, Tony.
When you look at data from Stern Stewart, in 1998,
Lucent, AT&T and SBC were running positive MVA (market value added).
Yet by 2002 the bottom 4 companies in Sterns Performance 1000 were all
telecom companies. It is all well and good to encourage competition and to
foster startups, but startups have a high casualty rate, with or without
regulation of the major players. I’d like to see the FCC come out of its
regulation/deregulation mindset and move its thinking to one of strategic
intent. That is more than just applying 80/20 rules where one concentrates
regulation on the 20% that has 80% effect, its about taking on an
accountability for infrastructure and the last five years has seen telecom
twisted and turned to create in effect a dog-eat-dog marketplace. Only the
FCC can bring back civility lost in the last 5 years, only the FCC has
that much power. If swear words offend the FCC, then the current state of
telecom should also.
What does strategic intent mean for the FCC?
It means looking at the marketplace and playing a multiplication game
where 1+1 = 11, not merely the addition and subtraction game of regulation
and placement. Of course the mandate of the FCC is to decide on regulatory
issues but a strategic intent works on the basis of getting two or even
three major competitors together and showing them where working together
produces a result of 11 (synergy if you want to call it that). Strategic
intent means asking companies like Nextel, what value they are going to
bring rather than just the real estate valuation of spectrum. The telecom
industry needs vision, not just vision in the boardroom but vision from
institutions that determine the nature and look of telecom infrastructure.
More than just regulating down the FCC should look at more than the sum of
the parts, its got to work with a vision first and leave the tactics to
the market and if the market is immature, first coach/faciltate and
re-emphasize the vision for telecom and if that isn’t listened to, say,
“hey see this here, it’s a hammer called regulation and just like good old
Drucker, our vision comes with a carrot and a stick”.
M. Ma.rk
is an abbreviation of my real name. “Mark Zorro” is my cyberspace
mark.
Welcome, from Denver. I'll
agree that tech innovation is not limited to California / SV, emphasizing
the point made elsewhere, and I suspect you were using it as more of an
example than a singular reference.
I'm impressed that you've taken
this step. From outside the beltway, it appears as though you've been
heavily influenced by the massive media conglomerates that own what was
one to have been free -- the communications spectrum that fills the air
above our country.
As you think about how to portion out the use
of that spectrum, please consider some basic questions: What else could
that broadcast spectrum be used for? Could you support more
locally-programmed TV? Would that offer more diversity of voice than your
proposal? Could you hand over un-used spectrum to political candidates and
remove some of the economic pressure from political campaigns? I don't
pretend to have your grasp of the complexities of some of these issues,
but I strongly urge you to look beyond the business implications and
consider the needs of the people (hint: it's not another dozen TV
channels).
I think your position regarding not regulating emergent
spaces is right on the mark. Business will innovate much more quickly in
an less regulated space. Please weigh, however, that the airspace belongs
to THE PEOPLE, not to the government or to businesses who profit from it.
I feel like the FCC has lost some of that perspective under your watch.
Innovation, by and of itself, does not help Joe SixPack or KathyCommuter
live better lives. We need to be careful of the motivation for innovation,
and be more aware of the unseen and secondary costs that can accrue to the
American people.
Thank you again, for reaching out beyond the
beltway.
Welcome Mr. Powell, and like many others, we wish
you and your father well; even when we disagree so strongly with much of
what transpires in Washington.
Tony will attest that I walk on the
left while trying to retain my trained capitalist view. However, I have
been debating this subject with many of my constituents for several
months: Most businesses are entrepreneurial and seek market domination
through competitive advantage -whatever that might be. I heard someone
once say that socialism would benefit the American automakers the most -
imagine the opportunity to be the sole market provider. However, I can
make a strong case that the Objectivist/Libertarian views of free markets
too often fail. The US cellular market is an excellent example of free
enterprise run amuck. Conversely, I doubt that the US highway system could
have been imagined, designed, built, and implemented with anything other
than almost full government control. Similarly, the very things that
make the Internet both ubiquitous and accessible had, at the outset,
little to do with free enterprise. Are you saying that some services
must be administered by an "independent" entity, which at times must be
the government to ensure quality, configurability, availability, and
standardization? If so, I agree, at least when speaking of basic
telephone services, water, public safety, and residential power.
Nevertheless, this issue of media ownership, and more importantly the
behavior of the giants, suggests that you ignored the application of
ensuring quality, configurability, availability, etc. Like many, I too
feel that you missed an immense opportunity to give the market what it
wants and needs - choice. Did you believe that market forces might someday
compel these giants to deliver programming that people want? Worse, did
you think the market was screaming for prescriptive, formulated, and often
times biased content? John
Mr. Powell, congrats on joining AO! I think it's
great to have more minds in the mix, especially from our government. I
think your post is excellent and gives us some more insight into your
thinking. But, it sounds out of synch with some of your policies. How is
further media consolidation (never popular with the people) good for
business/competition? I don't know anyone who thinks that is a good idea,
except for those that already have all of the keys to the candy
store.
If Disney owned Moore of everything would we even get the
chance to see Fahrenheit 911?
Further, would you define 'indecent'
for us? I'm at a loss. And, since this is so loosely defined, won't new
penalties simply wipe out smaller voices in favor of large that can afford
the penalty? Welcome aboard!
Gentlemen: I think Mr. Powell references SV is as a
proxy to innovation and as a leader for the tech community. I don't hear
him saying that it's the be all end all. The fact is SV innovates more.
Being from Massachusetts I can say that there is more of a culture of
innovation here. Luckily it's spreading throughout the US. However it's
not spreading fast enough. Case in points: 1)The RUS should be ashamed at
the pace that they are moving on the Digital Divide Issue to promote
broadband in rural and tier 2 markets. 2) Homeland security networks are a
pipedream until we reallocate and make available spectrum for new
capabilities (just talk to anyone working on the NYC public saftey project
- It's the Big Dig of telecom..It's a mess). 3) Let new IP based
technology go unregulated to spead the benefit of 'real' high speed
communication.
Mr Powell: Please release the spectrum needed and
please DON'T auction it off. Mr Kerry says he'll auction off more spectrum
to pay for other policies - this is a very bad move. Licensed spectrum is
good in certain situations but we have enough of it. Open up more common
spectrum to entrepreneurs and the VC's will invest (my opinion).
Please create and funnel the government funding to build 'new
digital roads' - we need a NEW DEAL for telecom. Entrepreneurs and their
investors need a policy to innovate. Start now.
Joe: I guess my point is this culture war may be
underway in the tech community of Northern California, but much of the
same battles are being fought all over the U.S. I'm confident there is
abundant fraud, narcissism, political correctness, and corporate
globalists in Boston, Austin, Seattle, WDC, and any other tech center we
care to consider. As for whether or not the Valley has peaked, maybe it
has, but I doubt it. California will remain the center of high tech and
entertainment because it has too much of a head start - too many
companies, trained people, and world-class universities - and of course,
the best weather on earth.
Hey Mr. Ring: Didn't say they were the 'only' ones
committing fraud. Said that Mr. Powell should not see the Valley as
'representative' of tech in the U.S. and should broaden his outreach
accordingly. I did say the bubble was an episode of digital Clintonism. It
was. Also said that the 'Valley' has peaked, that many of it's leaders
have lost their edge. Gave a few examples. Lot's more where those came
from if you really have the stones to foster a real debate on this
subject. Narcissism comment was focused on Sun, and it's failed attempt to
live outside the Microsoft ecosystem, which is the single most important
ecosystem in tech. Sun has now accepted that fact. But you missed the core
point, that the US high tech industry must remain '2nd to none' in order
to win the war on terror. Anyone who attempts to refute that position is
by definition a corporate globalist, not a proponent of healthy
nationalism. I gave the example of Israel as a roadmap for the US tech
industry....targeted government investment in key technologies for defense
and ultimate commercialization. So if you want to go a few more rounds
with a street kid from North Philly, at least read the freaking comments.
As far as 'singling' out the Valley. No. Just fighting for the heart and
soul of a place once great, now gray, but still capable of change. As the
old timers in Alcoholics Anonymous are fond of saying to addicts just
hitting bottom and still in denial, 'Hey, it was your best ideas that got
you here.' But here's the good news. Mr. Powell will now have gained
visibility into the culture war underway in the tech community of Northern
California. For that I thank you.
Joe Bentzel, You accuse Silicon Valley companies
of choosing fraud over investing in and building real companies. You
further accuse Silicon Valley companies of choosing globalism over
investing in U.S. technology and U.S. companies. But the Silicon Valley
shouldn't be singled out. Enron alone proves that massive fraud doesn't
just happen in the Golden State, and the rhetoric of globalism pervades
America's current Republican administration (and the previous Democratic
one) - the Silicon Valley is but a faint echo of that.
Just as it
is narcissistic to credit Silicon Valley businesspeople for the explosion
of technology and entrepreneurship worldwide, it is equally narcissistic
to claim they are the only businesspeople who would commit fraud, witting
or unwitting, or the only businesspeople who value their bottom line more
than the welfare of their nation.
Congrats on joining the AO network. Your desire to
minimize the regulation and obstacles with the communications sector in
order to foster innovation and progress is valid and appreciated. However,
my question to you is if you agree in general that the communications and
the media industries should be treated very carefully (and different than
more traditional markets) by the government because of their unique
ability to influence public opinion and their special role within a free
society. Your policies seem to disagree with this notion. For example, how
could one argue that having an oligarchical radio industry is good for
anyone other than those firms' stakeholders?
When do we get a national
broadband strategy that puts the US on a global competitive footing, What
steps is the FCC actively taking to insure our preeminence in this arena?
On some post on AlwaysOn-Network, many have called for the abolishment of
the FCC, although I am not one of them, how effective do you see the FCC
in shaping the broadband era?
Jeff Hearon [ddff-ltd] | Global
Broadband Strategies
[jch]
| POSTED: 07.08.04 @11:58 | I rated this blog: [5]
While I agree with limited regulation to foster
innovation, I believe that one of the goals of regulation is to make sure
there is a solid foundation upon which to build innovation, especially
where public resources are concerned. This is separate from creating a
level playing field, which is the source of much regulation.
Some
examples: AT&T provided the technical foundation for the telephone
network as a regulated monopoly and the NTSC provided the television
standards adopted by the FCC.
Where this has failed is in the
cellular phone industry. The existance of four separate technologies
providing the same end product has slowed the innovation that Chairman
Powell is trying to promote. While I don't think you can avoid the various
tailored marketing plans, having a single infrastructure base would have
allowed resources to be spent on adding features, not making the features
work (or not work) on four separate systems.
E911 is one of the
victims of the lack of a solid foundation. I'm sure there are others out
there. Looking at the other continents and the cellular services they
provide, one can imagine that American innovation would have surpassed
those features if we had a single system to deal with.
I applaud
Chairman Powell's initiative in getting in touch directly with the more
technically oriented community and would ask him to watch out for other
situations where a solid foundation is required and not to leave it
completely to market forces.
Dear Chairman Powell: Kudos to you for engaging
Silicon Valley. But I'd like to respectfully suggest that you diversify
your engagement of the tech industry beyond the confines of the
intellectually and morally bankrupt digital aristocracy of California to
which much of this weblog caters. Here's a few salient facts for you to
consider.
1. The fleecing of the public and the floating of
dysfunctional (now dead) companies perpetrated by the VCs of this area
during the internet bubble was the single biggest episode of business
fraud in U.S. history. It was not a 'boom and bust' scenario as many of
the top VC spin doctors now recount it, but a criminal enterprise of the
first order, digital Clintonism pure and simple.
2. Many so-called
'thought leaders' in the Silicon Valley have morphed into 'globalists' not
pro-US innovators. They don't understand the importance of the US tech
industry remaining '2nd to none' in the midst of a global war against
committed Jihadists. We need a tech industry more on the Israeli model, an
'eFront' in the war on terror that develops technology for battle, and
then commercializes it.
3. More than a few market leaders and
innovators in Silicon Valley have degenerated as a result of the bankrupt
culture of political correctness and liberalism that has infected US
society. Here's a few examples: -Cisco can't even defend it's own
source code against theft, yet says it delivers 'self-defending' networks.
Wow, that's a whopper. -Yahoo is morphing into a liberal media company.
It's chat rooms are filled with pedophiles and it's news headlines could
have come from the New York Times. -Sun is half the size it was at the
peak of the bubble. It's Silicon Valley 'malignant narcissism' was to pick
a fight with Microsoft for almost 10 years, fail at that fight in the
marketplace, and then rely on the courts and lawyers for a settlement.
-HP is an also ran. A defensive merger designed to meet the challenge
of Dell.
Anyway, let me get to the point of my little rant.
There's lots of tech growing up outside Silicon Valley. In Seattle, North
Carolina, the DC tech corridor, Austin, Boston and San Diego to name a
few. So engage the industry across the board and don't believe that
participating in Silicon Valley discussions means participating in the
tech industry. It doesn't.
Best Regards to You, and Best Wishes to
Your Dad, a true American hero,
My gut is the consolidation of "mission critical"
services under one or two providers - although a natural tendency of the
open market - is disastrous for national security.
Perhaps the
government's role is to make sure there's sufficient redundancy in our
nations infrastructure with local/regional providers for information,
power, water, and our food supply.
.gif)
MarketWatch
Laura Roden New Managing Director of The Angels' Forum
Editor's note: Michael Powell's
first post below was big hit with AO members and he responded to
some of the comments 
E-NEWSLETTER SERIES