IBM Didn't Get Memo That BPL Is Dead Signs $9.6m partnership to bring BPL to rural America Wednesday Nov 12 2008 08:48 EDT Tipped by Mactron Just when all signs seemed to have indicated that 2008 was the year broadband over powerline technology was going to die off, the Associated Press says that IBM Iis partnering with a small newcomer called International Broadband Electric Communications to explore using BPL in rural markets. The move comes just as two of BPL's highest profile deployments fizzled, and many BPL hardware vendors begin focusing their attention on smart electrical networks instead of broadband delivery. IBM's sudden interest comes on the heels of largely fruitless investments in the sector by Earthlink and DirecTV. On a positive note, instead of pretending that BPL is a major broadband pipe and challenging incumbent operations, IBM and IBEC seem willing to accept that if BPL ever succeeds, it will be a slower speed, niche player in rural markets with the help of smaller, electrical cooperatives. BPL supporters' bubbly, unfounded optimism remains intact, however: quote: "The technology is important but what's really important is this is a seminal moment in the delivery of broadband services to rural customers," said Bill Moroney, the head of the Utilities Telecom Council, an industry trade group. "Here's a beginning and really a great leap forward."
IBEC currently only serves about 1,400 customers with broadband (if you call symmetrical 256kbps broadband), but with a $9.6 million cash infusion from IBM and $70 million in loans from the government, the company believes they can build a network in two years that will serve 340,000 homes in Alabama, Indiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Bigger, better funded outfits have tried.There's been no shortage of rosy promises on the BPL front, but like the countless outfits before them that have failed, IBEC needs to prove the technology works, that it's profitable, and that it doesn't interfere with ham and emergency radio. Expect big blue's investment to rekindle media's superficial interest in a technology that really is little more than a walking corpse at this point. |
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: Modern broadband speeds from IBECHere's all you need to know:
"$70 million in loans from the government"
When free money is involved there will always be an organization spring up to squander it. | |
| | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2008-Nov-12 11:44 am
Re: Modern broadband speeds from IBECA loan is not free money. Having said that, I do agree that governmental loans tend to increase the odds that the borrower may not be as critical on spending as appropriate. | |
| | | | |
Re: Modern broadband speeds from IBECOh please. A government loan for stuff like this is essentially a blank check with no strings. When have you ever seen one of them 'called'? | |
| | | | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2008-Nov-12 6:21 pm
Re: Modern broadband speeds from IBECA loan is a loan and not free money. Have you seen a RUS loan not repaid? If so, what was the outcome, or lack of? | |
|
| |
to FFH5
It is slow, but it beats dialup. And, in some remote rural locations it may be the only way some folks will ever get broadband. Too far for DSL, and no one else is going to drop coax or fiber in such sparse areas. | |
| | | |
jay_rm
Member
2008-Nov-12 12:05 pm
Re: Modern broadband speeds from IBECsaid by rmmoody:It is slow, but it beats dialup. And, in some remote rural locations it may be the only way some folks will ever get broadband. Too far for DSL, and no one else is going to drop coax or fiber in such sparse areas. That's what wireless is for... | |
| | | | Cheese Premium Member join:2003-10-26 Naples, FL |
Cheese
Premium Member
2008-Nov-12 1:04 pm
Re: Modern broadband speeds from IBECsaid by jay_rm:said by rmmoody:It is slow, but it beats dialup. And, in some remote rural locations it may be the only way some folks will ever get broadband. Too far for DSL, and no one else is going to drop coax or fiber in such sparse areas. That's what wireless is for... And if wireless doesn't serve the area? | |
| | | | | |
Re: Modern broadband speeds from IBECsaid by Cheese:And if wireless doesn't serve the area? Then expand it to serve the area... You could expand the wireless coverage for a fraction of the cost of building a BPL network. | |
| | | | | | Cheese Premium Member join:2003-10-26 Naples, FL |
Cheese
Premium Member
2008-Nov-12 1:20 pm
Re: Modern broadband speeds from IBECsaid by james16:said by Cheese:And if wireless doesn't serve the area? Then expand it to serve the area... You could expand the wireless coverage for a fraction of the cost of building a BPL network. And since you think they should expand, do you plan on helping them with the cost? | |
| | | | | | | |
Re: Modern broadband speeds from IBECsaid by Cheese:And since you think they should expand, do you plan on helping them with the cost? I'm under the impression that they're already getting taxpayer money in order to install a technology that has failed time and time again. Sure it's a loan, but guess what, they're going to fail and go bankrupt and none of the money will be repaid. I'd rather pay twice as much in taxes and have it spent well than pay half as much in taxes and have it all wasted. | |
|
| | | | | |
JinTX to james16
Anon
2008-Nov-12 2:10 pm
to james16
Well obviously Verizon and Sprint don't share that opinion, or they would be expanding in our area, as well as many others. | |
| | | | | | |
to james16
Wireless is certainly an option. How well does it perform in more rugged parts of the country where line of sight is not always there? The REC's built out electrical distributions in the 40's and 50's. That infrastructure is still there, has been maintained and grown in the decades since. Seems to me if it can be used to deliver broadband at a reasonable cost, then it should be considered. Having said that, the interference issues MUST be worked out. Just my two cents. | |
|
| | | | |
to Cheese
said by Cheese:said by jay_rm:said by rmmoody:It is slow, but it beats dialup. And, in some remote rural locations it may be the only way some folks will ever get broadband. Too far for DSL, and no one else is going to drop coax or fiber in such sparse areas. That's what wireless is for... And if wireless doesn't serve the area? You usually have to build wireless, T-1s, or fiber into the area to backhaul the BPL traffic anyway because BPL can't do long haul. This is for rural areas, so T-1 costs are going to be outrageous. The only fiber this rural area will see is Metamucil. That leaves wireless. So, do you mess with BPL feedpoints, repeaters, and electrically dirty lines, or just install wireless and be done with it? | |
|
| | | |
JinTX to jay_rm
Anon
2008-Nov-12 2:09 pm
to jay_rm
**IF** you have wireless coverage. I'm in rural Texas. We are less than 2 miles from DSL, and they will not bring it any closer. Verizon wireless is ... OK - on a good day, I may hit up to 100K, which beats 48K. | |
|
| KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to FFH5
wonder if a power company could get into FTTH, they already own the poles so permitting would be minimal one would think. and of course operations cost would be lower since well atleast the electric costs for them would be well below market value. | |
| | | |
| KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to FFH5
now now there is plenty of Rural fiber, and sometimes the farmer finds it with his loader when digging a new drainage trench. =) | |
|
Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC |
Matt3
Premium Member
2008-Nov-12 9:04 am
PatentsMy guess is that IBM is supporting this so they can get a hold of whatever patents result from this. | |
| | |
Re: Patentssaid by Matt3:My guess is that IBM is supporting this so they can get a hold of whatever patents result from this. If it's already being deployed, probably not any patents that don't already exist. | |
| | | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC |
Matt3
Premium Member
2008-Nov-12 9:16 am
Re: Patentssaid by keyboards:said by Matt3:My guess is that IBM is supporting this so they can get a hold of whatever patents result from this. If it's already being deployed, probably not any patents that don't already exist. Actually, there could be a myriad of patents for avoiding interference to potentially develop. | |
| | | | |
Re: Patentssaid by Matt3:said by keyboards:said by Matt3:My guess is that IBM is supporting this so they can get a hold of whatever patents result from this. If it's already being deployed, probably not any patents that don't already exist. Actually, there could be a myriad of patents for avoiding interference to potentially develop. I don't think you can patent an off switch. | |
|
|
Technology advances...when it gets money for development.
Slow broadband is better than no broadband, as long as it's not too expensive. Co-ops would probably be way more interested in BPL anyway. Think of it: customer-owned ISPs. | |
| | Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA |
Sammer
Member
2008-Nov-12 11:39 am
Re: Technology advances...Co-ops are probably interested in finding a way to pay for a fiber backbone that connects their substations. | |
|
DrStrangeTechnically feasible Premium Member join:2001-07-23 Bristol, CT |
DrStrange
Premium Member
2008-Nov-12 11:34 am
[Expletive], WHY WON'T IT STAY DEAD?!Get out your silver bullets, your holy water, and your wooden stakes. BPL is back from the dead! Let's see if we can kill it permanently this time. Get ready to inundate the FCC with complaints if this gets even the tiniest amount of consideration.
I don't think there's a way to implement this technology without making large portions of the HF radio spectrum unusable. For every quick-fix that promises to reduce interference, there will be a slapdash installer who cut corners and increases interference. There are already enough 'dirty' power lines around without this junk generating its wide-band white noise. There are more practical ways to deliver broadband to customers who are currently not served. 'White-space' wireless comes to mind. What's that going to interfere with? Someones pirate SDTV station? Someone obviously paid a lobbyist a lot of money to resurrect this thing. May Barry Goldwater's ghost haunt them unceasingly and may President Obama raise their taxes! | |
| | |
Re: [Expletive], WHY WON'T IT STAY DEAD?!As many people and groups are protesting white-space wireless as BPL. BPL is here to stay simply because there is a market for it. As with anything else, if there is a demand someone will find a way to supply it.
LONG LIVE BPL!!! | |
| | | a333A hot cup of integrals please join:2007-06-12 Rego Park, NY 1 edit |
a333
Member
2008-Nov-12 1:00 pm
Re: [Expletive], WHY WON'T IT STAY DEAD?!said by bjbrock9: if there is a demand someone will find a way to supply it. And they'll fail. So long it's on THEIR money that they fail, I'm fine with it. It's their loss, not ours.... a333 | |
| | | |
to bjbrock9
said by bjbrock9:As many people and groups are protesting white-space wireless as BPL. BPL is here to stay simply because there is a market for it. As with anything else, if there is a demand someone will find a way to supply it. After five years of marketing, FCC promotion, over fifty trial systems and perhaps tens of commercial systems, BPL subscribers still only are in the 5,000 range and don't even get a dedicated category in the periodic FCC broadband report. That's quite a market | |
|
|
Don't expect to rural electric coops jumping on board.Truthfully, rural telcoms are finally bringing dsl (albeit slow and some with incredibly low caps) into some rural areas. I don't see many rural electric cooperatives jumping onboard the BPL bandwagon, especially if the local telcom is offering DSL. (They have enough on their plates and in this era of tight financing, don't expect them to lean this far away from their basic mission.) As a nation, we can't afford to allow development of the infrastructure for the next generation of the Internet to only be developed in highly urban areas, especially if the government allows critical infrastructure (like telcoms) to be moved completely to the Net.. It's far too easy for all your eggs to be broken if in one basket only. Whether intentional acts by man or mother nature target urban regions, not developing a robust, nationwide infrastructure for the next iteration of the Internet, which will require greater broadband speeds, creates a national security risk. Population density already makes urban areas a high target for human attack. Having your critical infrastructure located only in them puts them that much higher on the target list and presents an opportunity for potential enemies to make our responders blind, deaf and dumb after an attack.. | |
| jmn1207 Premium Member join:2000-07-19 Sterling, VA |
jmn1207
Premium Member
2008-Nov-12 1:47 pm
$9.6 Million? Pffttt!This is just like me buying a lottery ticket. Much smaller when comparing the total revenue of IBM to this puny little venture. This is not very much money when looking at the big picture, and the payoff is potentially huge. But just like a lottery ticket, the chances are astronomically slim that it will return anything on the investment. | |
| TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY 3 edits |
Illustration of the 'tards running IBMI have friends who used to work for IBM in Colorado. They jumped ship because of the idiots running the joint. Like HP they have gone from Engineers who worked their way up through the company to get to the top management positions too outragously overpaid outsiders who only claim to fame is running other companies into the ground. They have not been infused with the IBM culture. Any good engineer would see BPL has not gone anywhere and will not go anywhere. | |
| ctceo Premium Member join:2001-04-26 South Bend, IN |
ctceo
Premium Member
2008-Nov-12 3:53 pm
Several ContactsI have yet to receive any e-mail or phone call regarding interference to police, fire, or other emergency services in areas where BPL is currently deployed and functioning.
The major reason it didn't pan out is the publicity it got. Whether that publicity was founded or not is another story. In some markets where the technology is up and working there are no current problems with the service, yet the bad publicity prevents people from investing in it, and the service from expanding to meet the challenge of becoming a competitive broadband provider.
This is exactly the type of stimulation that a technology like this needs in order to become a major player. Without it our broadband options are largely limited to the Duopoly of Comcast vs. AT&T. The smaller companies are barely working on staying afloat and preventing themselves from being absorbed by the top dogs. | |
| | W1RFI join:2003-05-12 Burlington, CT |
W1RFI
Member
2008-Nov-12 8:04 pm
Re: Several ContactsUnder the rules, the BPL operator is required to notify local emergency services of their intended operation. It is then not likely that the BPL system will use emergency communications spectrum that is in use locally. I'm not suprised, as now that the filtering of the BPL equipment has been improved, it is not likely to interfere with spectrum it is not using. I do know of one or two cases where there was some interference to local 30-50 MHz spectrum, but to my knowledge, they were resolved. The basic principle applies here: At the operating levels that BPL uses, it must avoid locally used spectrum to avoid harmful interference. To the extent that it does that, it can deploy successfully locally. I don't believe that bad publicity has been the major downfall of BPL. In most cases, there has been little public information about the reasons that utilies have "concluded their successful trials of BPL." The anecdotal reports I get back from hams speaking with their local utility people, or in some cases from the nuts-and-bolts people in the utilities that economics and performance issues have been the primary reasons they were not interested. I'm sure that publicity has kept some utilities away, but of those systems that have gotten underway, the economic and technical issues seem to be paramount. There have been a few notable exceptions to the cone of silence that surrounds most BPL systems. The City of Austin undertook a BPL trial and wrote a report on the results: » p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ ··· port.pptAs to EMC, the negative publicity was well deserved. So was the positive publicity as the industry slowly responded to the EMC issues. When Motorola approached BPL with EMC and Amateur Radio in mind, ARRL was positive and supportive. When DS2 improved the filtering of the chipsets used by many BPL manufacturers, ARRL hosted them at its facility and did joint testing, with positive publicity. As BPL systems have deployed using this improved technology, ARRL has reported on its findings. So if the negative publicity were the cause of its demise, why was that not turned around by the positive? The answer is that although the negative publicity about BPL did initially hurt it, the other factors that have impacted it have been more dominant. I can't say I can fully understand those other factors, because for every system in which I hear the reports of poor performance, I hear another report that just as credibly reports that it worked pretty well. For every utility that bails because BPL deployment is too expensive, I see a utility that appears to be making a financial go of it. I am thinking that the variables in the environment, the installations and the capability of the equipment and operators combine to variable end results. The industry has made some EMC progress, but for that to be complete, it needs to embrace those successful models and have them incorporated into industry standards and good regulations that can have the support of all stakeholders. So far, the industry has not been able to bring itself to do that, and even at the voluntary standards level, entities like IBEC and the United Power Line Council are strongly resisting including informative information about the proper identification of BPL interference and a procedure to resolve interference complaints. As that stonewalling becomes public, it it the publicity, or the stonewalling, that is the real downfall? I'd say the latter, as this industry would benefit from following in the successful footsteps of the cable, DSL and other broadband technologies that have adopted industry standards that have had the active support of other stakeholders like Amateur Radio and its organizations. For me to be able to come onto this public forum and explain that with a strong industry specification that avoids using the Amateur bands, HomePlug has been successful with its in-premise BPL shows that good standards work. With millions of HomePlug devices deployed, ARRL has not received any complaints about harmful interference that have been associated with HomePlug devices. Will we be able to say that same thing about other BPL technologies? How much has the existence of a strong industry standard developed in direct cooperation with ARRL had a positive impact on the HomePlug's success? See » p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ ··· ARRL.pdf. The rest of the industry has the same opportunity on the IEEE P1775 BPL EMC Committee, but so far, they are choosing confrontation instead of building the necessary bridges. Is the publicity to blame, or the reasons that the publicity needs to exist in the first place? Ed Hare, W1RFI ARRL | |
|
N3EVL join:2004-12-13 Shrewsbury, MA |
N3EVL
Member
2008-Nov-13 7:46 am
What about the rest of HF?Notwithstanding Ed Hare's fine efforts on behalf of Amateur Radio and its HF spectrum allocations, it seems to me that if BPL were to be ultimately widely deployed despite its propensity to interfere, that would indeed be tragic. Let us not forget that BPL based on use of HF radiates: no magic bullet has been found that prevents this. Notching added by the equipment manufactures is now apparently sufficient to prevent interference in the notched ranges. Unfortunately, that notched range does not appear to stretch from 0 - 30MHz Were I an avid Short Wave Lister (apparently without anyone or any organization to speak up and defend my spectrum?) I'd be very worried. | |
|
| |
|
|