 Iceman4u2 Premium join:2003-12-02 Rochester, NY | Let the broadband speeds speed across the lines I hope this works out. People need choices, and this is a another possible way to get broadband. If it fails..then it will be tweaked and tinkered with. ILECS should be on their toes. | |
|  |   Eat Me
join:2002-09-25 Sussex, NJ clubs:
·ProLog
| Re: Let the broadband speeds speed across the line said by Iceman4u2 :I hope this works out. People need choices, and this is a another possible way to get broadband. If it fails..then it will be tweaked and tinkered with. ILECS should be on their toes. You already have cable, satellite, wireless and dsl. How much choice do you need? | |
|  |  |   felix_j K I 4 I L U Premium join:2004-08-24 Harrisonburg, VA
·Comcast
| Re: Let the broadband speeds speed across the line DSL: Low availability outside major metro areas Cable: Better than DSL, but still not enough availability Satellite: Not cost-effective, slow and expensive Wireless: New technology, still blossoming BPL: Expensive, slow, high RF interferance Fiber: Still spreading, long range for low cost.
-----
DSL, Cable, and BPL (if it doesn't die) will continue to be confined to major metro areas. Satellite is hampered by the laws of physics, Fiber is hampered by laziness of investors, and Wireless isn't seen as a viable option by everyone. So, for those who aren't in major metro areas, two of the three options are still growing and aren't getting the attention they deserve, and Satellite needs to curl up and die unless quantum physicists can come up with a way to increase the speed of light. | |
|  |  |   broadbandless in sea
| You already have cable, satellite, wireless and dsl. How much choice do you need? I have no wireless, cable or DSL providers that service my house. Unless you count $8000.00 to install cable (yes that is the real quote from the cable company), or iDSL which is expensive and slow (and doesn't qualify as broadband).
So if BPL can serve me I'm interested.
Yes I could get satellite but it is relatively expensive and the latency makes it useless for some applications such as VPNs and games. | |
|  |   dandeman
join:2001-12-05 Chapel Hill, NC
·AT&T Southeast
edit: October 28th, @09:34PM
| I followed the field trials pretty closely in the Raleigh, North Carolina area, with Progress Energy. It was pretty trying to fill the holes in swiss cheese in terms of solving the interference problems..
Sorry guys, interferencing with other over the air services given the limited frequency bandwidth available by trying to use power lines that were never designed to be RF transmission lines (antennas, maybe) is not going to cut it... | |
|   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
edit: October 26th, @03:29PM
| Power companies just don't want into telecomm Power companies just don't want to spend the capital dollars to try and get into a business their management teams don't really understand. The only way this will ever work is if the power companies can find a way to lease access to their infrastructure to companies that want to provide telecomm services over power lines.
Come visit the Red Room forum | |
|  |  Iceman4u2 Premium join:2003-12-02 Rochester, NY | Re: Power companies just don't want into telecomm How do you know? Are you speaking for All Power companys?? I think you need to put away your broad stroke of a brush and get a number 2 pencil. | |
|  |  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Power companies just don't want into telecomm said by Iceman4u2 :How do you know? Are you speaking for All Power companys?? I think you need to put away your broad stroke of a brush and get a number 2 pencil. Did you read the news item referenced. The power companies basically said they aren't interested.
Dozens of utilities that ran trials of the service in the last three years took a pass on making a business venture of it.
"This is not our core business," said Deborah Drew, a spokeswoman for Massachusetts Electric Co., the state's biggest utility with 1.3 million customers. "We think it works, but we certainly wouldn't want to be in the business of being an Internet service provider."
"You also need to talk about whether there's a business model for coming in late with what is basically a me-too broadband service," said Matt Davis, an analyst with The Yankee Group in Boston. Because of lingering bitterness over their disastrous 1990s forays into telecom, like NStar's big losses in RCN, Davis said he thinks many utilities' investors are pressuring them to steer clear of running broadband networks, even if they use their existing electric lines.
Mass. Electric's Drew said that while the Westborough-based utility has no interest in providing Net service directly, it would be open to a partnership with a provider like EarthLink. "We're open to talking to ISPs," Drew said. "We'd basically take a landlord approach and rent out space on our lines, but we wouldn't participate in providing the service." -- Come visit the Red Room forum Bush/Cheney 2004 When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber.- Winston Churchill | |
|  |  |  |  Iceman4u2 Premium join:2003-12-02 Rochester, NY | Re: Power companies just don't want into telecomm Did you read the article???? It said "nearly 160 investor owned", not ALL POWER COMPANIES as your broad brush painted for us. There are companies that are moving forward with this and private owned utility companies investing in this. | |
|  |  |  |  |   SRFireside
join:2001-01-19 Houston, TX | Re: Power companies just don't want into telecomm If that's your only point then drop it. Lets not argue semantics here. | |
|  |  |  KB2PSM
join:2002-08-06 Long Beach, NY
edit: October 26th, @03:51PM
| Iceman4u2, I don't want to appear argumentative, but you seem to be guided by the hope of this working while wearing blinders with regards to the facts.
Don't just react...do the research. More choice is great, I am with you on that...but faulty choices (search for the many threads at BBR to see what I mean), do not make the mix better or more attractive.
The previous poster is right. If the power line companies wanted a piece of the profit, without promoting an RF polluting and globally "tried and failed" technology, they could have offered their poles for lease, or help to finance/build someone else's cutting-edge and non-intrusive fiber optic infrastructure.
Be well, Rob | |
|  |  |  |   neosolace Stay In It
join:2003-08-25 Verbena, AL
| Re: Power companies just don't want into telecomm True. From what I have seen, BPL looks like a good idea, but it looks to be a band-aid (even if it did work flawlessly). I don't have access to broadband, but I'd still rather see something more feasible used for rural deployment, like possibly wimax or even just plain old wifi. | |
|  |  |  |  russotto
join:2000-10-05 Collegeville, PA
| PECO (Philadelphia division of the power company Exelon) tried to make a go at it as a CLEC, a joint venture with Adelphia (a bit that split off before the fall), but they sold out their stake to their partner (now TelCove). As far as I know PECO has had nothing to do with BPL. I believe this is a fiber network. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  BBWEST
join:2004-09-05 Port Angeles, WA | It is very expensive to deploy correctly BPL is almost as expensive as FTTN not H to deploy correctly meaning Filters and tuning and truck rolls. Plus it really doesn't work that well in rural areas.
Sorry not negative just the facts. | |
|  |  Iceman4u2 Premium join:2003-12-02 Rochester, NY
edit: October 26th, @04:36PM
| Re: It is very expensive to deploy correctly See...this is where your reading has FAILED you. If you read what the article said " it said investor owned (STOCK TRADED) companies were not interested. Business models can change, and to these that can and want to chance a hit on there bottom line with the hope of ROI in a 5 years here is a vehicle to invest in.
I'm not blinded, as some poster stated, I wish all technology's have a chance to grow. I'm a network engineer, and see the change face of technology and cutting edge. Saw it when we were doing routing for IP6 at the Universities for Internet 2. Worked it for the testing of MPLS 5 years ago, when we were in labs testing the idea with Cisco. All I'm saying was the poster should not use broad stroke statements to speak for ALL POWER COMPANIES. Especially when the article states INVESTOR OWN POWER COMPANIES. | |
|  |  |   SRFireside
join:2001-01-19 Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: It is very expensive to deploy correctly The largest power companies out there are publicly owned. Do you have the list of privately owned ones that are interested in implementing after trials? If the big companies with the large revenue streams coming in to help absorb that up-front cost don't see a lot of incentive the smaller ones will have a hard time to as well.
From what I've been reading BPL under its current state won't be able to compete with the other broadband technologies for that long a time. Unless something is done to improve bandwidth speeds, interference issues and high cost of ownership this idea will be dead in the water in just a few years. | |
|  |  |  KB2PSM
join:2002-08-06 Long Beach, NY
| said by Iceman4u2 : I'm not blinded, as some poster stated, I wish all technology's have a chance to grow. Hey, I (we!) are with you on that point. The technology should grow. -BUT- BPL is NOT a technologically sound method of providing broadband. To embrace it, simply because it may be another offering does not excuse all of its detriments. The technology should grow and fiber seems to still be the holy grail. Other methods such as WiMax also may hold promise, but the electric companies wouldn't want/embrace it since it takes away the piece of pie they are looking for. | |
|   CheeseWare Premium join:2003-04-24 Burnaby, BC
| Who is not skeptical? Other than the truly desperate for broadband at all cost (i.e. FCC, unserved/underserved subscribers), is there really anyone not sceptical? It costs an arm and a leg to deploy, has got no substantial trial to this day, has got no roadmap, no scalability, no throughput, and huge RF interference disruption risks.
If utilities really want to take advantage of their right of way and get into telecoms for their own network needs, they really should look at other access technologies. | |
|  |   Transmaster Onward Through The Fog
join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY
edit: October 26th, @07:38PM
| It is going just the way.... I thought it would. It is the money that is going to kill this turkey. Investors have once been burned by the Dot-Com's and this looks very much like that. When you crunch the numbers, the cost of installation, the limitations of bandwidth, the potential of damage from electrical ingress, Idiots plugging their computer into a wall socket without the modem, etc will throw any smart investor off. I have no doubt utility engineers don't want to have anything to do with BPL either. -- »www.gobpl.com | |
|  |  moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD | Re: It is going just the way.... But didn't someone else *cough* Kamper *cough* see the numbers and thought they looked "attractive?" (insert sarcasm here)  | |
|  |  |   Transmaster Onward Through The Fog
join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY | Re: It is going just the way.... If you look a the cash flow in BPL it is almost like a pyramid scheme. the ones who started it are in the money but the later investors will loose. -- »www.gobpl.com | |
|  |   fireflier Coffee. . .Need Coffee Premium join:2001-05-25 Limbo
·RoadRunner Cable
edit: October 27th, @07:07AM
| As a "utility engineer", I'll have to agree with you. BPL isn't part of our core business and to integrate that into an electric utility business model, would require significant investment in personnel and equipment. I'm sure some utilities will consider it, but I frankly would prefer to divest myself of involvement in it.
In the past 8 years, we've had so much other crap added to our respective plates (thanks to FERC 888, 889), I don't even want to think about having to coordinate transmission and/or distribution outages to also keep communications available for grandma checking her email from the grandkids. We already have some rights-of-way with fibre embedded static wire that's utilized by outside companies for long distance services. It makes working on those transmission lines more cumbersome.
Maybe BPL is a promising technology for those who have no other options, and maybe some day it will get developed enough to be simple, but for now, my primary concern is keeping the lights on and anything that interferes with energizing and de-energizing transmission/distribution affects reliability. -- Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk? | |
|  |   country boy
@wvnet.edu
| Seems like you have some experience with plugging in a computer without a modem-- It's called a POWER cord.
Rural Electric Power was brought about by rural co-ops(owned by customers)--not investors looking to make a buck.
21 years ago most of the items you reference were not at issue--Because Ma Bell still had a strangle hold on the communications industry. Ma Bell was not going to allow ANY competition.
My money is (and always has been)on the free enterprise system, and not on the nay-saying "experts". | |
|  | |  |
|
|