U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind - Page 2

Have a question or want to start a discussion? Post it! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind


Ron Hunter wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.





Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind


James Knott wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
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


Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind


Ron Hunter wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.




Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind


On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 07:46:24 -0400, James Knott

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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


Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind


Bill M. wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's already done, with house connections.  However, you'd have to replace
the entire system to eliminate the problem.  If you're going that far, you
might as well run in fibre for data.



Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind


wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

snip...


PB also suffers badly in low density deployments.    
    
    The only pratical solution for rural customers will probably be
some form of wireless.


Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind


Quoted text here. Click to load it

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 they laid new wire in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. We
didn't need to then. Now we do. But now we no longer allow the Telcos to
just spend money and roll it into the rate structure like we used to. (I
can argue both sides of this one.) So now the Telcos have to KNOW the
new services will make the money back before they invest. And if you
think Europe isn't subsidized, you're nuts. 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.


Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind


David Ross wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: infrastructure age in the US.
I have lived in my current home for 38 years, and the telephone lines
haven't been changed, or added to, in that time.  They are paper wrapped
single copper wires in a lead (yes) tube.  Wind and rain plays havoc
with them.
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!


--
Ron Hunter  rphunter@charter.net


Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind


On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:29:38 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

CD would be better, and reduce reliance on having an ISP, plus be faster.


Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind


BR wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
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


Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind


Ron Hunter wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.


Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind


$Bill wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
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


Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind


David Ross wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.



Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind


Quoted text here. Click to load it
The basic problem with widely available "free" options is that they tend
to drive almost all mass market "paid" items from the market.


Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind


Quoted text here. Click to load it

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'.


Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind


Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.


Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind


David Ross wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You can't compare residential and business rates.  As with the phone
companies, businesses pay more.  What does that company charge for a home
user?




Re: U.S. Broadband Access Falling Behind


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Home and HOSO users count. I work with both. Plus small businesses. With
Bellsouth (or 3rd party DSL) you can get a static IP for $5 to $10
additional a month. Base rates range from $30 to $50 a month for Res.
With Bellsouth Biz you can get a block of 8 static for $120 total. With
cable you pay a min of about $40 to $45 a month. I don't know if static
IPs are even offered yet to homes. They were not recently. Biz is $80
min for cable but with a static IP block it can get to over $200 quickly.

My point is that they have different accounting and technical limits.
And what is a great deal for one type of user is a terrible choice for
another.


Site Timeline