RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Not to mention *received* interference...
The radiated interference issues aside, the technology relies on so many hacks and paper-clipped work-arounds that it is laughably susceptible to destructive interference to itself! The very areas where this is being trumpeted as The Solution--rural, low population density areas along with some of outlying suburbia--have notoriously bad power. Anyone who has tried to listen to weak AM or shortwave stations near such a power line knows this will never fly.
The power companies would be $Billions ahead if they just strung fiber along the static drains and neutrals like they routinely do with HV transmission lines, and deployed wireless as the "last mile", which in this case is the last 100 feet.
Didn't the dot-bomb economy teach investors anything?
--
Rise and take away their lies |
|
TruthConcern
join:2004-09-19
Kennett Square, PA
| Why can't power companies see the obvious?
"The power companies would be $Billions ahead if they just strung fiber along the static drains and neutrals like they routinely do with HV transmission lines, and deployed wireless as the "last mile"..."
I've been seaching for a rational answer to this comment for ages. Can anyone tell me why the power companies just can't see the bloomin' obvious?
It's a bit like the DC versus AC argument [Edison v. Tesla] all over again, except here the case against BPL is much clearer and more defined.
It's a no-brainer for most thinkers--that's anyone with a room-temperature IQ and above--but it's not for Powell, the FCC and the power monopolies. But on earth why?
|
|
