gmoney_indy
join:2004-01-29
Fishers, IN
| Has to get cheaper
They will have to make the service cheaper to create interest. It is currently not a great deal compared to cable/DSL when you look at the dollars per Mbps. I would really love to see this service take off though. More competition/choice is always a good thing for the consumer.
Pricing:
»www.current.net/ServiceAndPricin···enefits/ |
|
xirian
Premium
join:2003-01-26
Beacon, NY | those prices look pretty much ok to me. |
|
Topmounter
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO | reply to gmoney_indy
3 MBPS Synchronous for $39.95 and a free modem... sounds pretty reasonable to me. |
|
gmoney_indy
join:2004-01-29
Fishers, IN
| reply to xirian
I didn't notice the 3mbps upstream speed. If thats the case, then I'd agree that it's not a bad deal. And, I'd even be interested in dropping Comcast to have that much UL speed.
However, we are not the average consumer base here at BBR. Most Avg. Joe's don't have any concept of upload speed nor understand why having more is a good thing. So, if they can get 1.5-3.0Mbps (dl) DSL for $24.95/mo they are probably gonna go with that (Or even 1.5Mb DSL for $14.95/mo if they're close enough to the CO).
I'm paying $42.95/mo for Comcast HSI that will be going to 6Mb DL speed shortly. |
|
DONKEYKONG01
join:2003-03-21
Metairie, LA
| reply to Topmounter
said by Topmounter  :3 MBPS Synchronous for $39.95 and a free modem... sounds pretty reasonable to me. but but but but but but but buttttttt.... it cannot compete with dsl or cable soit's just a waste of resource and investment. |
|
93254336
Weapons Of Masturbation
Premium
join:2001-10-20
| What about markets where there is no competition, e.g. rural areas where the Telcos aren't interested in deploying RTs and the Cablecos have no intention of ever offering service. In these areas, the "choices" are either dial-up or satellite, and neither will provide customers with 3 Mbps synchronous service.
- Dan
--
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | The rural argument has been tried and failed.
With the infrastructure needed to make BPL work, there will be no return on investment for the few people that would get it.
It is NOT as easy as plugging in a modem to an AC outlet. |
|
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| reply to 93254336
The problem with rural deployment is that BPL does not propagate forever down the wires. It is not economical to send DSL or cable modems down miles of line because the broadband signal needs to be amplified every few miles. With BPL, that distance is 2000 feet, so to send BPL for miles either requires a non-BPL backbone, or a large number of repeaters. BPL could be made to work in a rural community, but so could DSL or cable. In general, broadband has gone where it is economical to do so, and with BPL, the infrastructure is not already in place -- all those amplifiers, repeater and couplers need to be installed. Generally, the BPL systems I have seen (13 and counting now) run fiber to a neighborhood and then BPL on the overhead primary lines, then onto the secondary lines feeding homes or businesses. ARRL has been concerned with BPL interference, and it can be extremely strong across tens of MHz of HF and low VHF. Fortunately, at this point, Motorola, Current Technologies, IBEC and Corridor Systems all have BPL designs that don't use spectrum allocated to the Amateur Radio Service. Current is the most widely deployed, and their design choice is a significant reason for their success. Motorola has the design that appears to be the most EMC friendly to amateur radio, and they will soon be nipping at the heels of the others, I would think. Even so, those systems operating at the FCC limit will cause local interference to other HF spectrum users, such as international shortwave broadcast. ARRL's information on BPL is at »www.arrl.org/bpl. Ed Hare, W1RFI@arrl.org, ARRL Lab |
|
