BPL Remains in NeutralThough FCC set to discuss technology in August ( old news - 10:12AM Monday Jul 31 2006) tags: fcc · BPLResident industry engineers here at Broadband Reports have clearly spelled out the problems with broadband over powerline (BPL) technology, while the technology continues to stumble across the digital landscape, most versions of it still marred by interference concerns. Dreams of a significant "third broadband pipe" are fading, and the technology is now mainly filling the role of an improved power utility monitoring solution (see Austin's announcement last week). Still, according to the technology's proponents, each year is going to be the year BPL takes off - though it still remains largely idle as a residential option. Meanwhile the FCC, whose previous commissioner called the technology the "great broadband hope", has BPL on the agenda for discussion August 3 (see Word document). The ARRL, an association comprised largely of ham radio operators and engineers, has been working hard to include provisions in upcoming broadband legislation that force the FCC to further explore interference concerns with broadband over powerline technology.
Related:- Hams Want FCC To Actually Study BPL Before Praising It
- Hams Demand FCC BPL Test Data
- FCC Ignoring BPL Interference?
- The FCC's Split Personality
- FCC, Hams Spar Over Powerline Broadband
- Court Agrees with ARRL in FCC BPL Issue
- Broadband Over Powerline (BPL) Stumbles
- New Docs Show FCC Glossed Over BPL Flaws
|
 moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| This isn't a viable option...... With the amount of bandwidth consumed by the average person getting higher and higher, BPL will not be able to keep pace with cable or fiber. Even DSL is a better option if you can get it.
Combine the interference issue and you get a lot of pissed off investors and power companies wondering what were they thinking.  | |
|  | 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
 ·Comcast
| Re: This isn't a viable option...... said by moonpuppy  :With the amount of bandwidth consumed by the average person getting higher and higher, BPL will not be able to keep pace with cable or fiber. Even DSL is a better option if you can get it. It is starting to look more and more like BPL will be a non-starter in the marketplace. It was never as cheap or as fast to deploy as claimed, and with Wimax getting the big push now from technology companies like Intel, its opportunity to become a viable broadband competitor appears to have passed.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | lovewomen
join:2003-08-07
Springfield, VA | Re: This isn't a viable option...... The electric company already reads my meter without a meter reader. My meter has a radio in it that sends the meter reading to a central box hanging from a light pole that relays the reading elsewhere. | |
| | W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| The following is a repeat of a post I made on »www.eham.net:
For the most part, electric utility companies are not interested in providing access broadband to retail customers. They are looking at BPL primarily for utility applications. Meter reading, voltage monitoring, outage detection, video monitoring and load shedding are the primary first-generation targets. For the future, the blue-sky goals are to develop an intelligent grid that could, if done correctly, have value by improving reliability, helping to route power more effectively, leading to improvement in the efficiency of power generation, etc. Some utilities do want to have excess capacity to sell, either retail to customers or wholesale by leasing the lines.
Each individual application may not require broadband, but in the aggregate, a significant amount of bandwidth is needed. And if technological history has any bearing, there is little doubt that if a high-speed communications channel is available, application will be developed to fill it.
It is arguable about whether BPL is the best way to accomplish the above goals. On one hand, the wires are there and there is great appeal to the utilities to utilize existing infrastructure. OTOH, the channel is noisy and the wires were not intended to carry RF signals and at RF, they are much better antennas than transmission lines. After all, if niceities like coaxial cable and Cat 5 twisted pair weren't needed, why were they developed.
We should leave the industry to work that out for itself; as licensees, our only concern with BPL is its interference potential. And that potential has been realized in spades, especially in early deployments.
If BPL operates at the FCC limits, 30 uV/m at 30 m distance, that will translate to S9+ noise levels locally. This has been seen in a number of systems, and early deployments were using the ham bands, based on statements by the BPL industry leaders that BPL operating at the FCC limits will be inaudible. (Laughable to anyone who knows EM theory).
ARRL worked with one of the vendors 3 years ago. Together we found the expected strong interference... and nothing was done. They apparently thought our working with them was all that was needed, and that the interference found was being reported to them only for their information. A local amateur in the area who regularly operated mobile there filed a formal complaint. At that point, the company has gone through rounds of denials, trying to "notch" the ham bands in part of the area, reporting to FCC that it is completely notched.
Especially in the early days, this is a pattern that was repeated in area after area, and if Amateur Radio had not stuck by its guns, there is no doubt that BPL would have been deployed at full strength in the ham bands.
At this point, in response to the pressures brought by interference complaints, more of the industry is trying to address the very real EMC problems associated with BPL. Motorola, for example, worked with ARRL directly in the design of their product, with the effect that its emissions in the ham bands were inaudible when a Motorola system was installed at W1AW. Current Technologies uses a system that operates 32-48 MHz on overhead power lines, and 4-21 MHz on premise wiring, but with the ham bands notched using HomePlug technology.
Amateur Radio should not be "against" BPL. If it can be implemented in a way that does not cause harmful interference, then we should be no more against it than we are against DSL or cable. Cable systems can and do cause interference. Yet cable is an industry that has addressed those interference problems head on. When the BPL industry chooses to do the same -- and it appears to be on that track, at least in part -- we can all breath a collective sigh of relief and move on to more interesting things.
IMHO, BPL has a way to go. Its leadership is still taking the premise that interference to mobile operation is fine because the mobile station can just drive away. That is not possible if BPL is built as big as an entire state and they certainly would not take that stance if even 10% of the coverage they enjoy right now for their mobile phone system were subject to interference.
Amateurs need to remain firm about harmful interference and we need to remain cooperative and help this industry do what needs to be done to truly address interference. IMHO, this will be a tough nut to crack, but if this industry is serious about fixing its EMC problems, we should be serious about helping them do it.
Amateur Radio has a long track record of working successfully with industry to resolve interference. Our cooperation with the cable TV industry, DSL, home-phone-networking and HomePlug are all examples.
What is ironic is that arguably, the most successful BPL to date is the Current Technologies system installed in Cincinnati. It has deployed without major interference problems. It uses HomePlug G1 technology. I find it somewhat ironic that this BPL success is building on work Amateur Radio helped to do:
»www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/HomePlug···ARRL.pdf
We need to stay the course on BPL interference until this industry designs BPL that does not interfere with Amateur Radio. The industry is not entirely there yet. But we also need to stay the course on recognizing that it is the interference that is the issue and ensure that the things we say and do are focused in that direction.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Laboratory Manager
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06111
Tel: 860-594-0318
email: W1RFI@arrl.org | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: This isn't a viable option...... said by W1RFI :For the most part, electric utility companies are not interested in providing access broadband to retail customers. They are looking at BPL primarily for utility applications. Meter reading, voltage monitoring, outage detection, video monitoring and load shedding are the primary first-generation targets. Ed, I agree with you except for the point above.
The phone company's regular POTS line are regulated but their optional services (Caller ID, Call-Waiting, etc.) are not so they are free to charge what they like for those services.
While power has been de-regulated in certain areas, memories of Enron are still fresh. BPL is seen, by some, as another non-regulated revenue source. What was sold to the power companies are a quick money maker turned into a technical nightmare.
This reminds me of how the first home computers were sold (Atari, Commodore, etc.) Checkbook and recipe programs were the "new thing" that these things could help out with. Turned out they were more suited for other things like games and the occasional book report that kids would do.  | |
| RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | Improved power utility monitoring That is what it was designed for, not a consumer internet connection.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| Die The right way We all know BPL sucks as a high speed internet connection. But what is ultimately going to kill it is no one can make any money with such a system. Any one who had taken the time to look at deployments of BPL overseas would have seen this coming. The best example is Singapore they deployed BPL on a limited basis in the late '90's. They quickly found out it could not compete with other systems coming on line. They closed their trial because of this. When BPL finally dies the death it so richly deserves no one can accuse anyone one BPL wasn't given a chance.
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
| | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: Die The right way said by Transmaster :We all know BPL sucks as a high speed internet connection. But what is ultimately going to kill it is no one can make any money with such a system. Who says that the object is to make money?
Look at it as a tool that the companies would like so they can lay off meter readers. But it is a tool that will cost money that in the short term (America's financial thinking for the past 10-20+ years) will cause a drain on the financial reports.
Now consider that the political hype is that everyone has to have a 'fast' internet connection, coupled with the foot dragging and lawsuit happy incumbents, and you have a source of investment income that listens to hype instead of fact.
Presto! You now have a built out BPL that you can use for your monitoring and not have to pay for it from the normal capital update funds. So when BPL for Internet dies and the investors run to the next BIG THING, well you have it in place so you might as well use it at the less polluting level, right?
DISCLAIMER: No where have I seen this in writing except for my postings on the subject. But considering the bad engineering theory behind it and the stockholder thirst for returns NOW, it does make sense.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Re: Die The right way You know something you have a very good point | |
| | | 
sickofit22
@midco.net
| 4 years crapping around on net, makeing trails that never go anywhere i'm sick of the bpl and talk of if it. as a ham i don't care if it ever gets going i just sick to dead of hearing about the dam thing. f-bpl f- the fcc and f- everyone come to think about it. that's my 2cents and $50 bucks for gas.
no more code please-------------------------------------- | |
| 
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
upstate NJ |  BPL is Dead
-Tzale | |
| | W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| Re: BPL is Dead Actually, to my knowledge, no fines have been issued. In one system - the Main.net system operating in Manassas, VA, the FCC ordered the BPL operator to do testing to determine if was operating within the FCC limits. That testing probably cost tens of thousands of dollars, but there has been no fine issued.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Laboratory Manager
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06111
Tel: 860-594-0318
email: w1rfi@arrl.org
Note to moderator - My contact info is public, so no need to protect it from the spambots. | |
| kc5fog
join:2005-09-09
Hitchcock, TX
1 edit | Hurry up and die BPL is a useless technology sold to stupid power companies as a way to get a "piece of the pie". The harmful effects of BPL on shortwave radio, ham radio and emergency communications FAR outweigh any potential BPL offers. Power companies need to stick with what they are good at, selling power, not high speed Internet. | |
|
ucme
@optonline.net | bias posters try reading http: //broadbandoverpowerlines. blogspot. com/
and you`ll see that the new BPL technology is now a global trend !!! | |
| | | |
|
|
