BPL Trial Shelved Never resolved interference concerns Tuesday Jun 29 2004 16:29 EDT A broadband over power-line trial in Cedar Rapids, Iowa has been ended prematurely, after the location had been a hotbed of complaints over interference issues. The trial had been one of the more friendly examples of both radio hobbyists and the energy industry working together to solve the technology's major hurdles. BPL, a technology FCC chief Mike Powell has called the "great broadband hope", certainly has quite a way to go before cable and DSL executives lose sleep. The ARRL recently came to the defense of one ham radio operator whose home was smack-dab in the middle of the trial - and being bombarded with interference. A formal complaint from the organization urged the FCC to fine the company behind the trials - Alliant Energy - some $10,000 for violating the Communications Act of 1934 - and FCC Part 15 rules regarding acceptable interference levels. The FCC didn't. Now that the trial has ended several months early, radio hobbyists are hinting that the cancellation is a victory, while the companies involved suggest they simply finished their evaluation of the technology earlier than expected. They do however admit the complaints played a part in the early cancellation. Alliant Energy, in conjunction with concerned engineers, tried several approaches to reduce interference, including notching out or "power masking" the HF amateur bands, which the vendor claims is "labor intensive". Opponents argued the company should have interference sorted out before any type of trial was attempted, particularly since BPL emissions in some instances have had an impact on emergency communications. Other similar cooperative efforts, such as an ongoing Progress Energy trial in North Carolina, have found that the steps needed to minimize interference may clash with the concept of making a profit. For that reason, there are many communities where the technology is being deployed without acknowledging the interference problem whatsoever. In some instances, trial operators have denied any problem whatsoever. While interference was certainly an issue in Iowa, Alliant also found that the topography of the area made the wireless portions of the network difficult to manage. Alliant Energy's BPL Project Leader Dan Hinz says he considers BPL to be a "strategic deployment technology," not one that could successfully be deployed anywhere in America with the hopes of competing against DSL or Cable. At least not yet. The company, which has no current plans to deploy the technology further, could have probably looked at the long list of global BPL trial failures before deployment. The majority of participants in our current poll indicate they believe the technology needs more research before full deployment can be considered. |
N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano Premium Member join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs |
N3OGH
Premium Member
2004-Jun-29 3:48 pm
Great broadband hope?Sounds like the great broadband hype to me.
Good luck to them getting it to work without interfering with exisiting services. I doubt this will happen, as the power grid in my area (Philly) has so many bad connections on it, I can map them with the interference heard on my AM radio as I travel down the road listening to the local sports talk station. | |
| | |
The great broadband hypeThe power utilities need to focus on; 1) Maintaining and sorting out the interference from their existing equipment. 2) Keeping the lights on. | |
|
|
I thought this was cool though.quote:
A BPL extractor in Cedar Rapids The system uses 2.4 GHz WiFi to make the Internet connection between the pole and customers' homes. The extractor's antenna is glistening in the sunlight.
At least the residents don't have to worry about dealing with electricity should something go wrong with the service. | |
| sabersaw Premium Member join:2001-08-21 Dayton, OH |
sabersaw
Premium Member
2004-Jun-29 3:57 pm
no kiddinglets see, the worlds largest antennas are causing interference. well, they are only talking about Ham ops now, when aircraft HF, Maritime HF, SWLs, government/utility people have interference issues.. maybe someone will learn that they are running in circles trying to deploy this technology without trashing atleast half a dozen legit services. | |
| BigCreekGod Is Good. Premium Member join:2002-06-25 Heber Springs, AR |
BigCreek
Premium Member
2004-Jun-29 4:04 pm
I'm always amazed ...... that everyone seems so anxious to see this technology die. Are there problems with it? Apparently so. But we need this technology to compete with DSL/cable and to serve the dead areas.
So would everyone mind not doing the happy dance. There's not much to celebrate here.
Let's hope they can re-group and find solutions.
I, for one, want this to work. | |
| | techjoe Premium Member join:2004-02-20 Lombard, IL |
techjoe
Premium Member
2004-Jun-29 4:10 pm
Re: I'm always amazed ...Amen. | |
| | | zoom3148Superman Premium Member join:2001-04-30 Yermo, CA |
zoom3148
Premium Member
2004-Jun-30 11:48 am
Re: I'm always amazed ...Well It's too late the anti-BPL Harpies are here already. Quick Run away... So I hope that a solution can be found, But that may take some R&D and that will take some time and that's only If there is a Solution to be found of course. | |
|
| sabersaw Premium Member join:2001-08-21 Dayton, OH
1 recommendation |
to BigCreek
said by BigCreek: ... that everyone seems so anxious to see this technology die. Are there problems with it? Apparently so. But we need this technology to compete with DSL/cable and to serve the dead areas.
Let's hope they can re-group and find solutions.
well in the meantime, anyone who interferes with a licensed radio station should be fined. This entire concept is flawed.. its just amazing to me how much effort they are willing to put into this before they cut and run. be mad at the telcos and cable companies for not having the infrastructure they should. after you have paid to build them up. | |
| | | |
Re: I'm always amazed ...said by sabersaw:
said by BigCreek: well in the meantime, anyone who interferes with a licensed radio station should be fined.
Then the fcc should just stop issuing ham licenses. Then we just have to wait awhile, then there will be NO one to complain about interference. | |
| | | | sabersaw Premium Member join:2001-08-21 Dayton, OH |
sabersaw
Premium Member
2004-Jun-30 11:27 am
Re: I'm always amazed ...yeah, that sounds like a great idea.
but what about the other services in the HF bands and 30-80 MHZ.. don't forget Aircraft, Maritime, WWV atomic clock sync signals, Military Affiliate Radio System, WeFAX, VHF lowband (used by business and county/state/city utilities/police).
Also, toss out my first amendment right while your at it.. I don't care to listen to broadcasts originating from other countries.
I don't think so.
not for this snake oil, my friend. | |
| | | | Balzer join:2000-12-18 Tulsa, OK |
to MazakGuy7
said by MazakGuy7:
said by sabersaw:
said by BigCreek: well in the meantime, anyone who interferes with a licensed radio station should be fined.
Then the fcc should just stop issuing ham licenses. Then we just have to wait awhile, then there will be NO one to complain about interference.
Who said anything about ham radio? | |
| | | | |
to MazakGuy7
said by MazakGuy7: Then the fcc should just stop issuing ham licenses. Then we just have to wait awhile, then there will be NO one to complain about interference.
You'll have to go to the ITU and convince some 200 other countries to stop issuing licenses as well ( » www.iaru.org/statsum00.html ). After that, you'll need to tackle the other 90% of HF spectrum users which are the government, military, ships, and planes, among others. It might be easier to deploy a technology that doesn't interfere. | |
|
| n2jtx join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY |
to BigCreek
said by BigCreek: ... that everyone seems so anxious to see this technology die. Are there problems with it? Apparently so. But we need this technology to compete with DSL/cable and to serve the dead areas.
So would everyone mind not doing the happy dance. There's not much to celebrate here.
Let's hope they can re-group and find solutions.
I, for one, want this to work.
No, we do not need this technology. Short of the BPL providers notching out all of the frequencies between 2MHz and 80MHz to mitigate interference, which would effectively stop it from working, or going around and placing shielding on all of the transmission lines, it is doomed to cause interference, period. What the FCC needs to come to terms with is the question about whether or not providing Internet service via this technology outweighs the destruction of the radio spectrum. They apparently seem to agree that it is but still need to sweep these nasty little "hiccups" with the technology under the rug. If there was no other way to provide broadband Internet, I would definitely say there is a problem and it might outweigh the benefits to having a clean HF spectrum. However, there is cable and DSL (and fiber if you are lucky), though the companies are not deploying it to many areas because there is no money to be made with regards to the investment they have to make in the equipment and infrastructure. However, there appears to be another alternative besides BPL, DSL and Cable. If you take a look at » 802.16 Ratified , there is an article on the new 802.16 wireless standard. It may be some time away but the Wimax idea looks perfect for rural areas without the HF mess caused by BPL. Stick up a large antenna and beam broadband to the entire community. Of course this will probably not be good in the truly rural areas where neighbors are several miles apart but then there is no way any broadband technology is going to be deployed in those areas anytime soon. In terms of investment, the only infrastructure will be the installation of the transmitting tower, the transceiver and the Internet equipment connected to the transceiver. End user installation will probably be no more difficult than installing satellite TV. | |
| | ElJay join:2004-03-17 Portland, ME Ubiquiti EdgeRouter Lite Ubiquiti Unifi UAP-AC-LITE
|
to BigCreek
said by BigCreek: But we need this technology to compete with DSL/cable and to serve the dead areas.
The whole thing sounded like a bad idea to me, from the interference to the 802.11b wireless link into the house. I just don't see how it's a great idea to have broadband with the side effect of random garbage being broadcast into the skies. | |
| |
2 recommendations |
to BigCreek
said by BigCreek: ... that everyone seems so anxious to see this technology die. Are there problems with it? Apparently so. But we need this technology to compete with DSL/cable and to serve the dead areas.
Have you not been reading this board recently? Just why to you believe that BPL has any answer to the problems of the "dead" (meaning rural) areas. BPL operators are faced with exactly the same problems as any other broadband provider - they have to justify their costs against potential income. They too have to install costly infrastructure to enable their service. In rural areas there is no possible ROI. So, why do we need it? BPL is only viable in built-up areas, where there already is existing broadband availability. So, why do we need it? BPL speeds can't match those of cable, never mind fiber. So, why do we need it? BPL interferes with all other users of the HF spectrum, including emergency first responders and aeronautical safety, and prevents the reception of shortwave broadcasts, thus denying to the American people the chance to gain a perspective of world events independent of the sanitized version put out by the US media. So, why do we need it? BPL has failed most every place else it has been deployed. So, why do we need it? This is not tomorrow's technology - it is yesterday's failed technology. It should be placed in the trash can of history where it most firmly belongs. And yes, I am dancing at the prospect of its imminent demise. Check out » www.gobpl.com for the facts about BPL. | |
| | moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD |
to BigCreek
said by BigCreek: ... that everyone seems so anxious to see this technology die. Are there problems with it? Apparently so. But we need this technology to compete with DSL/cable and to serve the dead areas.
Please, you think this will lower someone's bill? NOPE. DSL has gone down in price and all the cable companies do is up the speed past where DSL can go. Since BPL was near the same speeds as DSL, then BPL would cost the same as DSL so no price drop there. said by BigCreek:
So would everyone mind not doing the happy dance. There's not much to celebrate here.
There is a lot to celebrate here. A BAD technology has shown its true colors and now can be pushed to the wayside. Also, for something with the speed of slow DSL, why would anyone want it? Unless it was the ONLY choice (highly unlikely), no one would want slower speeds for the same price. DSL is around $35/month and so are most BPL trials. The $25/month BPL wouldn't last long. Too close to the cost of just MSN or AOL dial up. said by BigCreek:
Let's hope they can re-group and find solutions.
I, for one, want this to work.
If you can re-write the laws of physics, you are more than welcome to try. | |
| | ctceo Premium Member join:2001-04-26 South Bend, IN 1 edit |
to BigCreek
They have already begun to work on resolutions. Within the next few weeks to months a new plan to tackle the interference, will be put in place, and the project will start again. What I have not seen was proof that interference actually existed, so I'm with BigCreek on this one, Theres really no reason to happy dance over a minor stall in the inevitable rollout of a well needed product.
Feel free to post videotaped proof taken from that specific test bed, otherwise the case is closed, and the project will get the green light once again, and the legal tables will have turned because there will be no evidence to support the contrary in any FCC hearing. | |
| | | moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD |
moonpuppy (banned)
Member
2004-Jun-29 10:47 pm
Re: I'm always amazed ...said by ctceo: Within the next few weeks to months a new plan to tackle the "alleged" interference, will be put in place, and the project will start again. What I have not seen was proof that interference actually existed,
Alleged interference? Even Alliant says there was interference: quote:
Alliant Energy, in conjunction with concerned engineers, tried several approaches to reduce interference, including notching out or "power masking" the HF amateur bands, which the vendor claims is "labor intensive". Opponents argued the company should have interference sorted out before any type of trial was attempted, particularly since BPL emissions in some instances have had an impact on emergency communications.
Seems like a lot of work for something that doesn't exists. | |
| | | |
to ctceo
said by ctceo: They have already begun to work on resolutions. Within the next few weeks to months a new plan to tackle the interference, will be put in place, and the project will start again. What I have not seen was proof that interference actually existed, so I'm with BigCreek on this one, Theres really no reason to happy dance over a minor stall in the inevitable rollout of a well needed product.
Feel free to post videotaped proof taken from that specific test bed, otherwise the case is closed, and the project will get the green light once again, and the legal tables will have turned because there will be no evidence to support the contrary in any FCC hearing.
Here's an FCC filing with measurements » gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/e ··· 16214274 . As moonpuppy has mentioned, even Alliant admitted there was interference and was actively working on it. Technicians noted the notching was a "labor intensive" process. {late night humor} Were you on the OJ jury? | |
| | | | |
Re: I'm always amazed ...Very intersting reading. Did I read something about they were doing something different that what they told the FCC? If so it should have been canceled period. Its a failed concept. If you look at the formulas and theory behind a wire antenna and compare it to BPL. Even a poor EE would agree it makes no sense and they cant support their argument about how it works. It would be nice to have a way for rural areas to have decent broadband but this wont work and is an empty promess that it can never fufill. | |
| | | | ctceo Premium Member join:2001-04-26 South Bend, IN |
to rf_engineer
Interesting read.
I stand corrected. This does not mean that they will just up and can the whole project, as I stated before the project will resume at the right time. It just so happens that this was an ideal case in that the test bed happened to be surrounding the station claiming interference. I do not see this as any reason to cease all BPL trials and active areas. | |
| | | | Radio ActiveMy pappy's a pistol Premium Member join:2003-01-31 Fullerton, CA 1 edit |
to rf_engineer
Question: Are you aware of any ingress protection schema designed into BPL?
Hams and CBers with high-power transmitters might almost assuredly disrupt BPL connectivity. (I am both, although I have no high power equipment)
Any thoughts? | |
|
| |
to BigCreek
said by BigCreek:
So would everyone mind not doing the happy dance. There's not much to celebrate here.
I'm against BPL interference but I personally don't consider this something to celebrate. It is unfortunate this technology has gotten this far. There are potential customers that see this as a real rural broadband solution or an alternative to incumbent broadband providers. It is neither. Worse yet, there are people that have been hired by BPL vendors and carriers to support the product. The questionable technological outlook for BPL may not bode well for them. There are no winners here. It's commendable that Alliant was working on the problems but decided to pull the plug. I do hope they come back to the table with a solution, but how about something like fiber with a wireless last 100 feet? | |
| | techjoe Premium Member join:2004-02-20 Lombard, IL |
to BigCreek
That's the point it seems the !bpl gang always misses. The energy companies did not jump head first and turn all of the power lines into antennas for their tests. The reason the tests were conducted was to see in a real world sense where the problems still lie. The more and more I read on it, the clearer it is - All of this press and hype about BPL deployment was a bit premature. Obviously with the closing of the tests in Iowa, they now know specifics on where the problems are and what ways of getting around them will not work. Ok, back to the drawing board. Every technology has to start somewhere..Usually at the bottom plagued with issues and dead-ends. Hammers and their likes very rarely, publicly at least, seem to be willing to work with BPL authorities on a way around/to lessen interferance issues. They just sit back waving their license around crying for the most part. Sure they will be quick to point out that it's making noise on their radio/killing signals beyond recognition, but that is only the tip of the iceberg if this technology will ever be more RF-friendly. | |
| | | tenbase join:2000-07-19 Alexandria, VA
1 recommendation |
Re: I'm always amazed ...Them: "Hey, lets try sending broadband signals over power lines!"
Us: "This is a bad idea, it's been tried before, the physics have not changed, there are better ways to accomplish this task, you are wasting your time."
Them: "How about a small test deployment here in Podunk."
Us: "This is a bad idea, it's been tried before, the physics have not changed, there are better ways to accomplish this task, you are wasting your time."
Them: "Hmm, it would appear that these power lines are radiating our signals into the atmosphere. Let's do some more testing".
Us: "This is a bad idea, it's been tried before, the physics have not changed, there are better ways to accomplish this task, you are wasting your time."
Them: "Gee, we sure are getting a lot of flak from a wide variety of users of this spectrum. Maybe we should do some more testing."
Us: "This is a bad idea, it's been tried before, the physics have not changed, there are better ways to accomplish this task, you are wasting your time."
Them: "Let's try a deployment in a different area, perhaps we will get fewer complaints there."
Us: "This is a bad idea, it's been tried before, the physics have not changed, there are better ways to accomplish this task, you are wasting your time."
Them: "LALALA! I CANNOT HEAR YOU!!! There is no interference! LIES!!"
Us: "This is a bad idea, it's been tried before, the physics have not changed, there are better ways to accomplish this task, you are wasting your time."
Them: "These hams are making it difficult for us to find out what has already been discovered every other time this technology has been tested. Let's dazzle the policymakers with big words...and maybe set up a few more 'test sites' while we're at it."
Us: "This is a bad idea, it's been tried before, the physics have not changed, there are better ways to accomplish this task, you are wasting your time."
who is missing the point again? | |
| | |
1 recommendation |
to techjoe
said by techjoe: That's the point it seems the !bpl gang always misses. The energy companies did not jump head first and turn all of the power lines into antennas for their tests. The reason the tests were conducted was to see in a real world sense where the problems still lie. The more and more I read on it, the clearer it is - All of this press and hype about BPL deployment was a bit premature. Obviously with the closing of the tests in Iowa, they now know specifics on where the problems are and what ways of getting around them will not work. Ok, back to the drawing board. Every technology has to start somewhere..Usually at the bottom plagued with issues and dead-ends. Hammers and their likes very rarely, publicly at least, seem to be willing to work with BPL authorities on a way around/to lessen interferance issues. They just sit back waving their license around crying for the most part. Sure they will be quick to point out that it's making noise on their radio/killing signals beyond recognition, but that is only the tip of the iceberg if this technology will ever be more RF-friendly.
Your reasoning would be valid if this was the first shut down. We've already been through this in several European countries and Japan. This is something the pro-BPL gang seems to forget. There's been six years of development and the problems that existed years ago still exist now. So the Cedar Rapids situation isn't some anomaly resulting from some newly discovered problem. Your "hammers" term is demeaning, but let's move on. If you research this more, you would see hams were working with Alliant and they've worked with other carriers such as the one in North Carolina. Your "just sit back waving their license around crying" comment is unfounded, and quite frankly you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. There's been tons of FCC comments filed from Amateurs and many have spent countless hours taking measurements and creating computer models. It is not up to Hams to fix a private for-profit company's technology that is intended to provide them with revenue. BPL is allowed to operate under Part 15 as an unlicensed radiator as long as it doesn't affect licensed services. It's not the responsibility of licensed services to accommodate these services or help them out of a mess they created anymore than it is the reponsibility of you to fix your cable modem or DSL service. What about the other 90% of HF spectrum users, those cited in the NTIA reports that have federal allocations, and those in aeronautical, maritime, and shortwave services? Are they waving their licenses around frantically, or does the NTIA have a valid complaint? If you look at the UPLC's comments, they for the most part oppose the NTIA's suggestions for prevention of interference. Where's the spirit of cooperation? They don't seem to be willing to work on a way around interference issues, as you put it. And they're a leading BPL proponent organization. | |
|
edhalenorange whip? Premium Member join:2002-05-16 Yorkville, IL |
edhalen
Premium Member
2004-Jun-29 4:15 pm
seems like it might be worth a try....Who knows? Nothing ventured nothing gained. | |
| | |
Tried and failed - worldwideBPL (AKA PLC, PLT, DPL) has failed worldwide - Singapore, Holland, Germany, UK, Finland . . . .
In almost 10 years not a single successful deployment anywhere. | |
| | | |
Re: Tried and failed - worldwideHas there been any technical advances in 10 years?
Succeed or fail, it is worth a try.
(and it isn't my money, so why not) | |
| | | | |
Re: Tried and failed - worldwidesaid by SquareSlinky: Has there been any technical advances in 10 years?
Succeed or fail, it is worth a try.
(and it isn't my money, so why not)
Sorry the laws of physics dont change. The only advance has been the avalanche of hype. And where do the electric utilities get the money? You do pay your bill? | |
|
|
failureI hope it fails so we can move on from attempting to use hacks over existing infrastructure in favor of networks specifically designed for data transmission. | |
| |
BPL is the worst choice for rural areasThe 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 morons. 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 dont have it
In reality, if the BPL companies succeed, they will abandon the rural areas and immediately focus on the wealthy suburban markets 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 installed by an linesman trained to work with 11,000 volt cables. So for a 16,000 foot run 8 BPL repeaters are needed. At the customers pole transformer a bridge needs to be installed to couple the signals from the 11,000 volt line to your 110 volt line, if this bridge fails, say from a lightning strike you will have 11,000 volts on all of your outlets ouch!
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. | |
| David95037 |
Aircraft radios - serious interference from BPLBPL does not just interfere with the Amateur Radio Service it also interferes with aircraft communications and is a safely threat. Read the details here; » gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/e ··· 16183088The comments were filed by Boeing the folks who build a lot of planes (747, 777, 737 etc.) The fact that the FCC has totally ignored these comments (and about 6,000 others) and continues to cheerlead this failed gross polluting technology raises serious questions of negligence by the FCC commissioners. | |
| | COMMANPlug Me In join:2000-07-17 Mount Juliet, TN |
COMMAN
Member
2004-Jun-29 6:40 pm
Re: Aircraft radios - serious interference from BPLsaid by David95037: ...raises serious questions of negligence by the FCC commissioners.
As those of us in the Broadcast industry know, the FCC has been the "business partner" of Clear Channel and other large corporations for several years now; it's been many years since the FCC applied their original mandate - to serve the public interest. As mentioned in the Philly article about Verizon, the telcos have received millions - in some cases billions - to provide the infrastructure to serve ALL of their customers with broadband access. For a FAR smaller amount of money than BPL deployment, every copper phone line could be upgraded to handle DSL. For all of the funding and tax breaks the telcos have received, it SHOULD have already been done. BUT, as the telcos (and cable companies in some cases) don't see a suitable profit from these rural areas, municipal efforts and private enterprise WILL come into the picture in a bigger way. Since we will all be getting our internet, phone, TV, and maybe more from one "wire" one day, each day these "incumbent providers" delay in providing these services is just one day closer to their extinction. Now I for one wouldn't mind seeing that day come soon. Having spent plenty of (wonderful) time in rural areas, I sympathize with the desire to see BPL work, but better solutions are coming - thanks to the hardships today, they hopefully won't say "Bell" in the name (or Sprint, Verizon, etc.)! | |
| | |
AnonymousDude to David95037
Anon
2004-Jun-30 10:40 am
to David95037
People just haven't realized that the T-word (terrorism) will solve this debate. All someone has to do is to point out that this will interfere with communications with mobile aircraft and could prevent those aircraft communicating in the case of a terrorist incident. Case closed. | |
|
TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY |
What I don't understandAll of this money and time going into BPL when this cash could be spent running fiber on the lines. The power companies are sitting on extensive rights of way and they can string fiber all over everywhere. They would have everything they want grid control, remote meter reading, and a nice broadband system all in one. With all of the lay off's from the Telcos the energy companies could hire all of the trained fiber optic installation and maintenance people they need. | |
| rogue_I Have A Secret Window Premium Member join:2001-10-17 Lake Hiawatha, NJ |
rogue_
Premium Member
2004-Jun-29 6:46 pm
It will come.. just a matter of timeFrequency is math.
And as we all know, it just takes an intelligent person to come up with the right math. Right now we have 'creative' people working out the math. | |
| | ••••••••• | |
Broadband Over powerI look forward to this. Mainly because DSL/Cable is just out of reach of me. Not enough volume to run the line they say. I get 24 K .not even near 56K connection. Something has to give . . Broadband over power could be good. I would take it at this moment if things where working . Give it sometime. Everyone learns something knew every day. | |
| | richk_1957If ..Then..Else Premium Member join:2001-04-11 Minas Tirith |
Re: Broadband Over powerYou'll never see it. I'm not going to go over the physics & interference issues because they've been discussed before. but they're another side. Economics. The same reason you can't get DSL/cable will be why BPL won't come to you. It ain't cheap & to deploy run it out for just a couple people. The first people to see it will be the area where the user density is high & they won't need it [mostly] because cable & DSL is already available to them. | |
|
hedyd4u Premium Member join:2003-12-16 Schenectady, NY |
hedyd4u
Premium Member
2004-Jun-29 11:42 pm
It's not our moneyWhy not launch a failed technology over and over are the power companies footing this bill. Seem like every time you here about BPL they have OPM to finance it. Give me millions and I can fail too. Just let me get paid first. | |
| |
hahahahohum
Anon
2004-Jun-30 10:24 am
Part 15 compliantLook at the specs for some of the BPL components. E.g., Conexant CX90010. The manufacturers say they're Part 15 compliant. Of course that's before some ignoramus hooks a big long piece of wire (i.e., antennas) to them. Then they become unintentional radiators of harmful interference. Duh.
Summary: a point source is no longer a point source when it has an antenna connected. | |
|
| |
|
|