[TriLUG] OT: (slightly) FCC Chairman at UNC [summary notes]

Tanner Lovelace clubjuggler at gmail.com
Tue Mar 6 09:40:55 EST 2007


On 3/6/07, Cristóbal Palmer <cristobalpalmer at gmail.com> wrote:
> My question for him, then, was what policies or
> regulations the FCC was looking at that would address the problem that
> only the incumbent Cable and Telco operations are investing in the
> "Last Mile" of broadband deployment. I specifically asked if he had
> any comments on various proposals for mesh networks. His response was
> that the FCC has made changes to make BPL easier (sorry Tanner, I
> didn't feel like I could interject–more on that later) so that local
> power utilities could, at their option, compete in the broadband
> internet space.

Thanks anyway.  I really would like to know, though, just why the FCC
seems to have blinders on about BPL.  The negatives on it severely
outweigh the positives.  It is not a very good means of transmitting data.
It spews out all kinds of noise and interference. (Whoever thought,
"hey, let's put a signal onto a long unshielded piece of wire and
hope it doesn't interfere with anything" is a technical idiot
and should have failed engineering school.)  And, in addition,
it can be screwed up enough to stop working just by someone
doing a licensed transmission nearby. (And, as a "part 15 unlicensed
emitter" they have no recourse when a licensed radio service tramples
over them.)  Yet despite all this, despite that it can interfere with fire,
police and other first responders, the FCC has consistently buried
its head in the sand and said, "Oh, this is internet so it must be good."
If I were more cynical I'd ask who had paid them off, but I don't think
it's gone that far yet.

Cheers,
Tanner


-- 
Tanner Lovelace
clubjuggler at gmail dot com
http://wtl.wayfarer.org/
(fieldless) In fess two roundels in pale, a billet fesswise and an
increscent, all sable.



More information about the TriLUG mailing list