rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to HotRodFoto
Re: Good Luck - CO
said by HotRodFoto  :
If anything it WOULD work here...I know excel is also considering it. Colorado has a LOT of small towns in the mountains that are isolated, where no one will service.
Small isolated towns are probably the worse suited for BPL due to its architecture. BPL has less of a range than DSL and cable. It requires repeaters every 200m or so, each of which are in the $4k to $5k range. Everyone seems to be under the impression that BPL is "plug and play" on the utility side, but it's far from that. It's not a long haul technology, so all of the traffic needs to be backhauled via telco facilities or fiber strung between feedpoints. I won't go into the numerous radio spectrum interference issues as they've been beaten to death on BBR, but it's a major obstacle. The article refers to BPL as new technology, but the fact is they've been trying to get it to work without ill effects for five or six years.
The business model for BPL in rural areas is very questionable. Chances are if you don't have DSL or cable, you'll never see BPL. Wireless is actually much better suited for covering an area like you're describing and is much more scalable and proven. |
