BPL: Not Even a Niche

What we need is more local entities to get involved doing their own infrastructure without restrictions placed on them by paid off state lawmakers at the behest of the companies that should be doing it but prefer to prevent others from proving them wrong.

Is it something to do with the speed, latency, or does it have sort of distance limits similar to dsl?

All I have to say is,on behalf of folks who understand
exactly how RF,antennas,transmission lines,and the physical layer(ISO layer 1) is:
See,I told you so!!!
And we can't forget about the marketplace,Darwin's therories are alive and well.

That's a far cry from ex-FCC chief Powell's tag of "great broadband hope."

Powell (no doubt at the behest of the stock scammers promoting this) is the "great broadband dope". Kev isn't much better but at least he's got one foot on the ground.

Is the fact there can be no complaints that BPL wasn't given a chance. I is failing on it's own. After BPL disapears from the scene because of the many failed trials we are not likely to see it rear it ugly head again.:D:D:D:D:D:D

I would at least like to hear the results from the Duke Power trials that were going on in the Carolinas.

What if its used not as an ISP, but as a conduit to get info from appliances or other info for marketing? Seems like an ideal solution as a back door into the home.

Why in the world would I want a friggin refrigerator connected to a network? None. That's why.

You forgot to mention one thing.

We are still waiting for our anonymous troll to come strolling in here with his great stock tips and BPL "hype" articles. :D:D

I'm not into the technology, so don't bash me for "BPL kills this wavelength" or whatever. But for some of us rural folks, BPL might be a great option. I know at my parent's house, there are no cable lines, we are too far away from a CO that is DSL-equipped to get that, and no wireless reaches us. Our only option is sattellite, which is expensive and laggy. What do we do? All you city folks can bash BPL all you want...but my parents would give anything short of paying thousands of dollars to wire us a chance to get better than the 21.6K dial-up we have. (yes, it always connects that slow.) I sure hope something else pops up in BPL's place...some people are still suffering!

...when a website has to link to itself as a source of negativity. We need some real world results.

Maybe you haven't seen the articles.

BPL needs repeaters every 1000 feet. Add those up and you can see the costs associated with rural deployment. The same costs that cable and telcos have servicing rural areas. Just because you have powerlines does not mean you could get BPL.

Do a search on here and you will see an article where Comcast wants $10,000 to wire up one small area.

BPL was never going to serve rural areas. PERIOD.

FAQ: »www.qrpis.org/~k3ng/bpl.html

BPL is dead...give it up already. What would be better is broadcasting a Wi-Fi signal through the lines and using the RF radiation usefully...we see how the lines leak off RF signals so why not broadcast a useful signal?

No, you wouldn't. And you would never set it up for that (much less pay for something like that). But on the other end, its a marketers dream, and if it could be done over BPL without any conumer effort (or knowledge?), it would be worth alot of money.

Im in agreement, until i see the results i will withold judgment good or bad.

That doesn't mean that they couldn't run FIBER over their rights of way: telephone poles/underground deployment to the home. If anyone can do this efficiently, its electric companies (Florida and California being the only noteable exceptions to the rule).

I'm not a huge fan of most of these goofy alternative ways to deliver broadband. Consumers right now already have a good selection of choices.

If you're in a metro area you generally can get access to DSL or Cable, and if you're not you can always tough it out with dialup or go satellite (Wildblue has a lot of good reviews,1.5 megs down, 256k up, and is $50 a month.)

The only one of these alternative broadband systems I like is one they proposed in Michigan. A few small communities have considered putting wireless transmitters on grain towers. They may as well be skyscrapers given our geography, and can service large areas. It would be great competition for satellite, given that it would have far less latency.

That type of strategy worked well for the chinese when they wanted a phone system but didn't want to run a bunch of expensive wire. Granted it's not perfect but it gives you basic service in a much shorter period of time and probably at much lower expense.

I agree, every rural area has phone lines, but they are not all serviced by DSL, they are limited by distance. BPL is limited too and the companies that roll it out are going to look for the maximum penetration for the minimal cash outlay.

That they are not trumpeting those trial results from the highest power pole speaks volumes.

Beg to differ...

Things generally are great in urbia. But there are essentially no choices in much of rural America. None of you here would consider dial-up as an alternative. And the fact that you mention satellite means you've never had it.

BPL appears to be a non-starter. But access for much of the geography of the country is far from a solved problem.

Perhaps. And it shows just how much of an idiot consumers are.

If you want to pick out only one problem with BPL and call it the problem, the big problem is that the utility companies cannot figure out how to make any money using BPL.

The typical BPL trial seems to end early with this style of announcement:

We are ending the trial. It was successful and we learned alot. Oh, and we will not be deploying BPL at this time.

We are left to guess at the reasons why. It could be:

• We could not solve the RF interference problems.


• Solving the RF interference problems made the costs of deployment too high.


• RF interference was not a problem, but the deployment costs are always higher than the costs of DSL (or cable, or FIOS, or ...).

The BPL equipment makers claim that the RF interference problem has been solved. If so, it appears that there is no business model with a high enough ROI for the utility companies.

... of the time were standing on the beach laughing at Wilber and Orville too. BPL's designers just need some time to tweak the ailerons. When they do, Redline Bell Corporation and her spoiled brat kids won't be laughing.

All of the money that was made by the firms selling hardware and hype. Not to mention the folks marketing it. The ratepayers and investors are obviously getting soaked.

I'll bet you also believe Elvis Presley is still alive. Engineers have been trying to "fix" BPL for at least 10 years and to date they have not been able to fiqure out a way around the laws of nature.

www.corridor.sys

Read it and weep, you "I'm a radio tech" naysayers.....

*********************************************
Re: All the self-proclaimed experts...

www.corridor.sys

Read it and weep, you "I'm a radio tech" naysayers.....
*********************************************

Imagine that - they are a BPL mfg. I have some property to sell you if you believe half of the hype a mfg has to offer.

First off, it is www.corridor.biz not www.corridor.sys

Secondly, the Corridor system is already known to not have the damaging interference that the Ambient systems are known for.

You might want to read this article to gain just a bit more knowledge:

»Broadband Fool's Gold

Still, BPL costs as much, if not more, to deploy as cable and DSL. The chances of it being deployed to rural areas is slim and none (and Slim left the building.) This will only go to places that already have at least one provider and are dense enough to support the ROI (Return On Investment) to justify the cost of deployment.

I'm a "radio tech" and I support Corridor Systems' technology. The problem is all of the BPL trials and systems you see described in articles and press releases aren't Corridor's type of BPL technology which is based on microwave surface waves, they're using conducted HF radio energy. Comparing the two from an interference standpoint is like comparing apples and oranges; the Corridor system just doesn't cause interference. The sad part is that the Corridor system has so much more bandwidth potential than all the HF based system, it isn't even funny. Instead of the industry and investors backing microwave surface wave technology, they've been trying for years to get HF BPL working and have a viable business model. BTW, Corridor's CTO is an amateur radio operator.

Why would "radio techs" weep over a form of BPL that doesn't interfere? That's been the problem with BPL all along (and something most BPL fans just don't get), not that radio techs don't want people to have broadband.