| Author |
Message |
Ron Hunter
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:20 pm Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
James Knott wrote:
| Quote: | Ron Hunter wrote:
Currently, DSL and cable are about the only choices. Cable requires a
minimum density to make it viable economically. DSL suffers from
distance limitations. Powerline broadband offers hope for rural
customers, but is a few years from general availability.
Powerline broadband also has serious interference issues with licensed radio
services.
I am sure that those problems can be overcome, in time. Right now, its |
use is limited to a few test areas, but I understand wider tests will
begin very soon. It's a great idea, using current infrastructure in a
new way, and it should be encouraged.
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
James Knott
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:20 pm Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
Ron Hunter wrote:
| Quote: | That's part. The thing some broadbanders (and want to be) have to worry
about is bundling, and those "too good to be true" offers.
You mean ads for '3 months of DSL service for $19.95'? When you check,
you find you are outside their range limit, and why don't they tell in
the ads how much the charge is after 3 months? Sigh.
|
I received one ad yesterday, offering speeds up to 3Mb for $9.95 (CDN), for
3 months. After that, it's $24.95/month. I've never heard of the company
before, so I wonder how long they'll last. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James Knott
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:25 pm Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
Ron Hunter wrote:
| Quote: | Powerline broadband also has serious interference issues with licensed
radio services.
I am sure that those problems can be overcome, in time. Right now, its
use is limited to a few test areas, but I understand wider tests will
begin very soon. It's a great idea, using current infrastructure in a
new way, and it should be encouraged.
|
Overcoming those problems will involve changing the laws of physics. Power
lines were never intended to carry RF and as a result act like antennas.
When you feed RF to an antenna, you radiate energy, which can interfere
with radio services. This also means that the broadband service is also
likely to be interfered with, by nearby transmitters. Also, those tests
have revealed interference problems severe enough to cause some of the
planned services to be cancelled.
While I certainly encourage the spread of broadband services, broadband over
powerlines (BPL)is not the way to go. Incidentally, some of the proponents
of BPL have asked the FCC etc., to loosen the regulations, so that they can
meet them. This means they know they're producing harmful levels of
interference to licensed services, but want to continue anyway.
Incidentally, the law requires such unlicensed services to not produce such
interference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James Knott
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:29 pm Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
David Ross wrote:
| Quote: | And while just NOW it leads
to some things better, research the "great" minitel (not sure of the
name) that France gave everyone 20 - 30 years ago to leap ahead of the
rest of the world. Gov forces solutions can be great at times and a
total money pit at others.
|
Technically, that French service was inferior to others, such as Telidon:
http://www.ieee.ca/millennium/telidon/telidon_about.html
However, it was deployed nationally, which made it more useful than the
others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BR
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:38 pm Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:29:38 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
| Quote: | To my mind, the best thing the phone companies can do to improve my life
is to put the phone book online, and save me from inundation in phone
books, and save a few million acres of trees in the bargain. We need
the oxygen!
|
CD would be better, and reduce reliance on having an ISP, plus be faster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Ross
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:20 am Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
| Quote: | And while just NOW it leads
to some things better, research the "great" minitel (not sure of the
name) that France gave everyone 20 - 30 years ago to leap ahead of the
rest of the world. Gov forces solutions can be great at times and a
total money pit at others.
Technically, that French service was inferior to others, such as Telidon:
http://www.ieee.ca/millennium/telidon/telidon_about.html
However, it was deployed nationally, which made it more useful than the
others.
The basic problem with widely available "free" options is that they tend |
to drive almost all mass market "paid" items from the market. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Hunter
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 20, 2005 6:37 am Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
James Knott wrote:
| Quote: | Ron Hunter wrote:
Powerline broadband also has serious interference issues with licensed
radio services.
I am sure that those problems can be overcome, in time. Right now, its
use is limited to a few test areas, but I understand wider tests will
begin very soon. It's a great idea, using current infrastructure in a
new way, and it should be encouraged.
Overcoming those problems will involve changing the laws of physics. Power
lines were never intended to carry RF and as a result act like antennas.
When you feed RF to an antenna, you radiate energy, which can interfere
with radio services. This also means that the broadband service is also
likely to be interfered with, by nearby transmitters. Also, those tests
have revealed interference problems severe enough to cause some of the
planned services to be cancelled.
While I certainly encourage the spread of broadband services, broadband over
powerlines (BPL)is not the way to go. Incidentally, some of the proponents
of BPL have asked the FCC etc., to loosen the regulations, so that they can
meet them. This means they know they're producing harmful levels of
interference to licensed services, but want to continue anyway.
Incidentally, the law requires such unlicensed services to not produce such
interference.
Actually, it sets limits on the level of interference. Still, inserting |
the signal closer to the customer pretty much solves the problem, and
filters at each transformer further improve the problem. Like many
other problems that seem impossible to solve, it will be overcome, just
not in the next day or two. I expect to see it in a few years, for some
areas.
Wireless certainly has promise, but the speeds require higher
frequencies, and then there are interference problems with that as well.
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Hunter
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 20, 2005 6:39 am Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
BR wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:29:38 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
To my mind, the best thing the phone companies can do to improve my life
is to put the phone book online, and save me from inundation in phone
books, and save a few million acres of trees in the bargain. We need
the oxygen!
CD would be better, and reduce reliance on having an ISP, plus be faster.
Faster than broadband? I doubt it for the purpose of local numbers, but |
how many CDs do you want to keep? Access via internet will make a
number in New York as available to someone in Miami as to someone in New
York. MUCH better. Still, if I were given a choice between the phone
book on CD and paper, I would take the CD in a heartbeat!
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
L Alpert
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:15 am Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
BR wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:51:35 -0700, L Alpert wrote:
Some people just don't get it. There is an "analog" divide. Those
that can afford it will get it. That is what happens in a
capitalistic society. Broadband is not an American birthright.
Well the issue isn't weither technology is a birthright (phones
aren't). But does the US overall need broadband to succeed and grow
(roads, airways, etc)?
|
No.
| Quote: | The second one is, is the present system in
place doing an adequate job of fulfilling the goal of growing
broadband in the US without leading to harmful effects to society?
|
Internet access is a prerequisite to having a full and enriched life. There
are those that can and do live without it. If it "grows" or not matters
little. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
$Bill
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:35 am Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
Ron Hunter wrote:
| Quote: | BR wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:29:38 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
To my mind, the best thing the phone companies can do to improve my life
is to put the phone book online, and save me from inundation in phone
books, and save a few million acres of trees in the bargain. We need
the oxygen!
CD would be better, and reduce reliance on having an ISP, plus be faster.
Faster than broadband? I doubt it for the purpose of local numbers, but
how many CDs do you want to keep? Access via internet will make a
number in New York as available to someone in Miami as to someone in New
York. MUCH better. Still, if I were given a choice between the phone
book on CD and paper, I would take the CD in a heartbeat!
|
For convenience, I would take the book. For searching and more detailed
usage, I'd take the CD (actually it's faster if you can just D/L the CD).
Not all people keep their computer online 24/7, so the book would be
quicker for many. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Hunter
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:20 am Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
$Bill wrote:
| Quote: | Ron Hunter wrote:
BR wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:29:38 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
To my mind, the best thing the phone companies can do to improve my life
is to put the phone book online, and save me from inundation in phone
books, and save a few million acres of trees in the bargain. We need
the oxygen!
CD would be better, and reduce reliance on having an ISP, plus be faster.
Faster than broadband? I doubt it for the purpose of local numbers, but
how many CDs do you want to keep? Access via internet will make a
number in New York as available to someone in Miami as to someone in New
York. MUCH better. Still, if I were given a choice between the phone
book on CD and paper, I would take the CD in a heartbeat!
For convenience, I would take the book. For searching and more detailed
usage, I'd take the CD (actually it's faster if you can just D/L the CD).
Not all people keep their computer online 24/7, so the book would be
quicker for many.
Certainly quicker if you have dialup, not faster than broadband, with |
computers on 24/7. And if you happen to have trouble reading those tiny
listings, the computer is vastly better. Worse, the fact that most
phone books chop the listings up into some many different sections, it
is almost impossible to find a number unless you know exactly what
suburb the person you are looking lives in. Indexed lists are worth
their weight in gold.
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James Knott
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 20, 2005 4:20 pm Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
Ron Hunter wrote:
| Quote: | Actually, it sets limits on the level of interference. Still, inserting
the signal closer to the customer pretty much solves the problem, and
filters at each transformer further improve the problem.
|
And what would be filtered. They've tried notch filters for preventing
interference to amateur radio, with limited success. However, they're
using the spectrum to beyond 100 MHz and there are a lot of services in
that range, including FM broadcast, low TV channels, emergency and other
mobile radio, aeronautical radio and beacons, short wave broadcast etc. If
you filter them all, you won't have much signal left for the broadband
customers.
As long as power lines are used, they will radiate the signal and
potentially cause interference. There's no way around that, short of
burying them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill M.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 20, 2005 4:20 pm Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 07:46:24 -0400, James Knott
<james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Ron Hunter wrote:
Actually, it sets limits on the level of interference. Still, inserting
the signal closer to the customer pretty much solves the problem, and
filters at each transformer further improve the problem.
And what would be filtered. They've tried notch filters for preventing
interference to amateur radio, with limited success. However, they're
using the spectrum to beyond 100 MHz and there are a lot of services in
that range, including FM broadcast, low TV channels, emergency and other
mobile radio, aeronautical radio and beacons, short wave broadcast etc. If
you filter them all, you won't have much signal left for the broadband
customers.
As long as power lines are used, they will radiate the signal and
potentially cause interference. There's no way around that, short of
burying them.
|
In theory, would it help to string the power lines as twisted pairs?
It's not likely to be practical, I wouldn't think.
--
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Norman Wilson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 20, 2005 4:20 pm Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
David Ross <news11@raleighthings.com>:
| Quote: | There are huge tax, regulatory, and historical issues here. The US had a
great phone system in the 60s relative to the rest of the world. They
mostly had zilch. So [Europe] laid new wire in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. We
didn't need to then. Now we do.
|
I'm not sure the technological picture is quite that simple.
I live in one of Toronto's older residential neighborhoods, near
downtown. (For locals: near Christie Pits.) My house was built
about a hundred years ago, predating electricity--there are still
a few gas-lighting pipes hidden in the walls. My telephone wiring
has been around for more than a few decades too; it doesn't date
from Alexander Graham Bell's lifetime, but until we had a second
line put in our protector block was no earlier than 1950s vintage.
Nevertheless there was no trouble providing me with DSL service
on my voice line (after which we cancelled the second line, which
was used only for data) when I first signed up five and a half
years ago, and although I've had occasional problems none has
had anything to do with the age of the copper between me and the
CO.
A friend lives in a much more recent suburb out on the periphery
(in the south end of Markham). His house was built in the 1980s
or early 1990s, much more recently than my phone wires were run.
That his wiring was done more recently caused trouble when he
wanted DSL service: his phone and a neighbor's shared the same
copper pair through a digital multiplexer, and (as it would
just about everywhere) it took a lot of arguing with the phone
company to get a straight copper line. In fact Sympatico, the
phone company's captive ISP, initially refused to serve him
because the phone company would have to do some work. I forget
just what ensued, but in the end Bell gave him straight copper
for his regular phone line, and he ended up with third-party
DSL on that wire.
So it's not clear that older phone wiring is of itself a
broadband blocker. It may even be that newer wiring causes
more trouble.
DSL and cable-modem service became available in Toronto at
about the same time. As I remember it, DSL was available
much sooner in older neighborhoods like mine, as if the phone
wiring in newer neighborhoods (like my friend's) made it harder
to provide the service. Cable worked the opposite way: newer
neighborhoods got data service sooner, my neighborhood got it
much later. (So why didn't my friend just use cable service?
I don't know.)
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
--
To reply directly, expel `.edu'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Ross
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:34 pm Post subject:
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind |
|
|
| Quote: | There are huge tax, regulatory, and historical issues here. The US had a
great phone system in the 60s relative to the rest of the world. They
mostly had zilch. So [Europe] laid new wire in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. We
didn't need to then. Now we do.
I'm not sure the technological picture is quite that simple.
I live in one of Toronto's older residential neighborhoods, near
downtown. (For locals: near Christie Pits.) My house was built
about a hundred years ago, predating electricity--there are still
Nevertheless there was no trouble providing me with DSL service
on my voice line (after which we cancelled the second line, which
was used only for data) when I first signed up five and a half
years ago, and although I've had occasional problems none has
had anything to do with the age of the copper between me and the
CO.
A friend lives in a much more recent suburb out on the periphery
(in the south end of Markham). His house was built in the 1980s
or early 1990s, much more recently than my phone wires were run.
That his wiring was done more recently caused trouble when he
wanted DSL service: his phone and a neighbor's shared the same
So it's not clear that older phone wiring is of itself a
broadband blocker. It may even be that newer wiring causes
more trouble.
DSL and cable-modem service became available in Toronto at
about the same time. As I remember it, DSL was available
much sooner in older neighborhoods like mine, as if the phone
wiring in newer neighborhoods (like my friend's) made it harder
to provide the service. Cable worked the opposite way: newer
neighborhoods got data service sooner, my neighborhood got it
much later. (So why didn't my friend just use cable service?
I don't know.)
|
You're right. It's not simple. I gave the simple answer. The complicated
one has to do with wire standards used, when laid, CO design, etc...
Your "near" downtown and old combined to give you a short dedicated pair
as your wire was laid (if CA and the US did it the same way) when the
phone company was expected to meet demand up to the LAST request at a
flat rate. Thus the infrastructure was in reality overbuilt. In the
"burbs" to save costs in the 80s they use multiplexed lines and ran the
wire long distances. Or they ran fiber to remote mini type COs which
couldn't initially support DSL. Plus a lot of other issues.
So old and close could trump 80s and far. And 00 and where ever usually
worked as they had remote terminals which could handle DSL.
OLD cable was a mess for Internet. But the cable companies (with vastly
different accounting rules being applied, at least in the US) rebuilt
most of their networks in the late 90s and early 00 to support digital
and Internet. So just now the cable companies have a big leg up. You can
usually get full speed "all the way out". But they are charging a very
pretty penny for that speed. Especially for businesses. Here in Raleigh,
3mbps down with 8 static IP blocks costs a small business over $200 a
month from Time Warner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in