| reply to PlagueX1
Re: What is it you don't understand? said by PlagueX1:
I'll start giving not wanting BPL when the Cable and DSL providers start caring more about the rural areas other then just wanting money in the urban areas. The only ones that are thinking more about the rural areas are satellite and the local wireless companys.
When SBC said they would have 100% availability they were just getting worred about BPL competition. BPL may have negititive spectrum interferance but atleast there are thinking more about the rural areas.
BPL is the worst choice for rural areas
The totally bogus claim that BPL is suitable choice for rural deployment is one of the many lies along with “no interference” propagated by the BPL cretins. The BPL strategy is to get the FCC to ignore the high levels of interference / spectrum pollution as the FCC wants to get broadband to communities that don’t have it
In reality, if the BPL companies succeed, they will abandon the rural areas and immediately focus on the wealthy suburban markets like Manhattan that are profitable and already have cable and DSL.
Check the numbers - DSL can work out to about ~ 16,000 feet from the central office. BPL can only go 2,000 feet from the BPL equivalent of a DSLAM, then it needs an expensive repeater.
However the math is worked, there is no way the power companies can implement this vast array of expensive equipment in rural areas with any hope of meeting the projected pricing.
The existing DSL broadband technology is proven and could be provided to almost everyone who has a phone, the barriers are political (and FCC failure) not technical. The solution to universal broadband lies in ensuring the phone companies serve all of their customers equally. BPL is a broken legacy technology that is a pure distraction to the objective of universal broadband. |
