| bpl is a loser... why are people trying to persue this technology... it will cause more problems than you can understand... bpl should never be adopted as a method of transmitting information via internet... |
|
Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
 ·ViaTalk
| BPL...HA...HA...HA... Very Funny I use to have BPL but... my speedstream router, my works speedstream wireless, my bosses speedstream wireless, and a clint of ours speedstream router just quit working one day, and since the company is no longer making them there is no warrenty.  |
|
| Sounds like your problem was more deficient hardware than the service itself.
I've been checking in periodically on the coverage of New Orleans' transformation into New Atlantis today, and the news anchors keep noting that the place is almost entirely cut off from modern communication. No power, no landline phones, cell phone towers down or clogged, all radio antennas down, and basically no civilian two-way communication except walkie-talkies.
It keeps occurring to me that this sort of thing is exactly the reason why we need a low-orbit global satellite network. Around 300 satellites, spaced out in orbit so that they cover the entire populated surface of the Earth. Massive bandwidth on each one, providing for cheap low-latency satellite phones and internet access. With an infrastructure that's more robust and can't be taken down, we wouldn't have the same kind of communications problems.
Assuming that each satellite cost around $200 million to make and launch, the project would be expensive at around $60 billion, but to the US that's one-fifth the cost of a war. It's very possible, and the benefits would be worth it.
Also, as an aside that's more relevant to the BPL topic, we need to start burying the d-mn electrical wires. Stringing bare wire up in the air is cheap, but if anything at all goes wrong it turns them into a serious hazard. Windstorms, car accidents, tornadoes, hurricanes--anything that can bring down the wires is already dangerous enough without having high voltage pumping into the ground. We need to start shielding and burying the wires. |
|
cfarm
join:2005-08-12
Byron, CA | said by FightingBlue :
It keeps occurring to me that this sort of thing is exactly the reason why we need a low-orbit global satellite network. Around 300 satellites, spaced out in orbit so that they cover the entire populated surface of the Earth. Massive bandwidth on each one, providing for cheap low-latency satellite phones and internet access. With an infrastructure that's more robust and can't be taken down, we wouldn't have the same kind of communications problems.
Assuming that each satellite cost around $200 million to make and launch, the project would be expensive at around $60 billion, but to the US that's one-fifth the cost of a war. It's very possible, and the benefits would be worth it.
A simlilar effort has already been tried and failed miserably. It was called Iridium. Eventually went bankrupt. |
|
| Actually, Iridium was/is insanely overpriced ($1.50 a minute to call a landline, $2-$4 dollars a minute for calls from a landline to a satphone) and grossly mismanaged (customers couldn't get service if they wanted it, many other problems). But despite the bankruptcy, the Iridium network is back up and running for the last 4 years. It's quite popular with the DOD.
The problem with commercial satellite networks is that a corporation demands their investment back within a fraction of the time that's practical, leading to oversubscription and inflated pricing. It would make a lot more sense to build the network like the Global Positioning System--created originally for government/military use, and open to the public as a matter of course. Or build a system like Teledesic, with the understanding that it's a long term investment. The potential applications are almost limitless, but you need to be able to see them. Corporate types have a hard time seeing the big picture--a massive worldwide network like this would be a telecommunications new world order, not an item on the balance sheet to be repaid plus X% in 36 months. |
|
| said by FightingBlue :
The problem with commercial satellite networks is that a corporation demands their investment back within a fraction of the time that's practical, leading to oversubscription and inflated pricing. It would make a lot more sense to build the network like the Global Positioning System--created originally for government/military use, and open to the public as a matter of course. Or build a system like Teledesic, with the understanding that it's a long term investment. The potential applications are almost limitless, but you need to be able to see them. Corporate types have a hard time seeing the big picture--a massive worldwide network like this would be a telecommunications new world order, not an item on the balance sheet to be repaid plus X% in 36 months.
There is a BIG difference between a 2 way communication satellite and a one way system (like GPS.) All the GPS satellites do is transmit. You do NOT transmit to them to get a position.
A communication satellite (like Iridium) would be much more complex and costly because of its 2 way nature. |
|
| reply to FightingBlue
"Massive bandwidth on each one, providing for cheap low-latency satellite phones and internet access." You’re using the terms latency and bandwidth interchangeably. The two are completely different, bandwidth denotes the size of the pipe, and latency is how long it takes to travel the length of that pipe. While I completely agree with your idea, it will never be a complete alternative to our existing networks, because we can't decrease the latency to anything near what we've all become accustomed to. At least not until someone can figure out how to increase the speed of RF waves well beyond the speed of light. |
|
| said by Yauch:At least not until someone can figure out how to increase the speed of RF waves well beyond the speed of light. Early on BPL companies claimed they found a way to keep an unshielded line tens of wavelengths long from radiating RF energy. I'm sure they'll find a way to speed up RF waves, there just needs to be more Marketing and Legal personnel applied to the problem.  |
|
|
|
| reply to moonpuppy
Yes, but the principle is the same--that once the capacity is there, it's there, and everyone can use it. It would be more difficult, but difficult is a far cry from impossible. |
|
| The principle is NOT the same.
Right now, thousands can listen to a local AM or FM radio broadcast. Millions can watch satellite TV at the same time. These are one way systems.
Landline phones can become overloaded very easily. Cell phone sites also have capacity limitations. These are 2 way systems.
You can increase capacity only so much in a 2 way system. Unless you think we need to put up a thousand satellites over North America (to handle the amount of calls), I doubt you will find a cheap solution to this. |
|
| reply to FightingBlue
said by FightingBlue :
Corporate types have a hard time seeing the big picture--a massive worldwide network like this would be a telecommunications new world order, not an item on the balance sheet to be repaid plus X% in 36 months.
Corporations don't exist to deliver "new world orders", they are there to make profits for their investors. The big picture is the balance sheet. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but that's just the way it is. Would you empty your bank account to invest in a company promising the "new world order" without any plan to reach profitability and you get your money back, plus some profit?
The fact is satellites are expensive, and it's tough to make a two way commodity service model work with it. Some bits get flipped in the satellite's memory or someone sends a wrong command spinning it out of control, and you have a big useless paperweight flying and you can't do a truck roll to fix it.
But back on the new world world comment, despite what people think, utilities are not going to deploy BPL to bring broadband to the masses or to enable a revolutionary ubiquitous network, or in response to pleadings from a few customers who have no broadband choices. They are going to make a decision based solely on the bottom line. There's a good reason the dream satellite network doesn't exist, or why Bob Farmer can't get broadband in Desolation, Montana and why he'll probably never see BPL. |
|
KB2PSM
join:2002-08-06
Long Beach, NY | reply to rf_engineer
Hehehe...
...I can't wait for that press release!  |
|
