nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| we wouldn't need BPL if....
- the FCC would stop kissing the telecom and cable industries butts and giving them whatever they want
- the congress would develop a spine and some morals and stop passing stupid legislation that only gives the telecom and cable industries more power over broadband deployment |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Cash. It truly is at the root of all evil. Spam. Spyware. Technologies being deployed without proper testing. Really bad modern rock bands Clear Channel wants you to like.  |
|
impactstudio
join:2004-04-05
Vancouver, BC
| Ah, corporate greed...
...meets the general public's unwillingness to look beyond their own noses.
While a valid argument could be made regarding the usefulness of this service for those in more rural areas where DSL/cable haven't yet made it but where you can generally find some sort of power grid, the technological issues inherent in this technology are a long way from being solved and wide-sweeping in their impact.
But it will be seen being offered as more and more power companies and rural consumerism see nothing but their own short-term convenience and profit.
But, hey, I'm Canadian, and I'm sure we'll regulate things a lot better here! |
|
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
·RoadRunner Cable
2 edits | reply to nasadude
Re: we wouldn't need BPL if....
Nasadude,
Agreed. For rural environs lack of infrastructure remains a challenge but for most people it's a lack of standards, planning, mixed with the ravages of open competition that hinder happy net usage. With wireless coming along nicely the development of another carrier technology with obvious issues isn't what the industry needs. I'd like to see more Muni connectivity coupled to competing ISP services myself. Competition brings some good, but it's not all good: too many competing, overlapping transports just means they all get done poorly.
My location is a classic example: village of 7000, 80 miles to nearest small city (Portland, ME (50,000) and 3 existing BB options to the door: cable, dsl, wireless - all done poorly and at high cost. DSL, in fairness, done technically well (verizon) but only if you buy hardline voice service which puts the monthly >80$ for 768/384. I'd be much better off if my town had followed he examples of Tacoma-WA, Ashland-OR & others and brought fiber to my door (nowhere in sight) thus providing a far superior carriage medium, permanently de-coupling it from the endless service bundling of the private sector, and keeping the price low & flat. |
|
jmkraft
Essayons
Premium
join:2002-04-11
Paris, IL | Deploy It Already...
Whatever it takes to get high speed to my house is all I have to say |
|
ced06
join:2004-03-12
Towanda, PA
| The market
Incase the companies haven't realized, BPL isn't going to work in small rural towns...what part of this do they NOT understand?
Most small towns hardly have the revenue to support businesses or even small retail chains. What makes them think they're going to afford to implement BPL technology (probably update the power grid), and put in repeaters?
Then you still have the issue of the people paying for it...most people are happy with their AOL dialup, or just can't afford broadband. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Others have money... but no broadband even close to their area. They DO have power coming in...BPL would be great for these people. But now you have the HAM operators moaning about bleed-over from BPL. I'll bet they already have broadband piped into their houses...screw everyone else, eh? |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
1 edit | what I don't understand
I don't understand the waste of money when the technology for the deployment of DSL is advancing by the month. They are testing DSLAMs with a 50,000 foot range. Qwest is installing DSLAMs with a 20,000 foot+ range. The BPL proponents like to harp about everyone having a power line going to their house. There is another connection that is almost universal, telephone lines. Yes I know there has been institutional problems with the Telcos but at least they have experience in the digital communications arena. The only knowledgeable people who are investing in the BPL turkey must be those investors that need a loss to reduce their tax bill.
--
"Remember when hacking a loogy
it comes not so much from the lungs but from the soul." |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | The power industry is very influencial (as you may have noticed in California), and the potential to use excess fiber to create a third broadband option is a potential multi-billion dollar business for a lot of chubby, old, white gentlemen......so obviously Uncle Sam is well lobbied.
The FCC loves it because it would create the illusion of competition, and they would see less pressure to yell at the cable industry for ridiculous rate hikes, or the bells for their ridiculously slow next generation broadband deployments.....
Everyone who has sent the FCC on thousand dollar trips to Vegas would be happy for a few minutes.
So there's some half-hearted tests going on at the FCC. the result, to nobody's surprise, will be that interference for these technologies is minimal, and BPL will go forward full steam.
Seven years from now, when some emergency crew can't communicate with home base because the burning neighborhood they're in is an interference nightmare thanks to BPL, Powell will already be in Aruba sipping some ridiculous looking drink.....
At least that's how I see it. But I've been labeled a cynic. |
|
SoWhat286
join:2000-07-21
Tulsa, OK | reply to dadkins
Re: The market
Why don't you become a ham operator since you really don't understand.
KC5VJH
c-ya |
|
Topmounter
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO
·Cox HSI
| reply to dadkins
So screw the Ham Radio operators and any licensed spectrum that might get in the way of your quest to replace your existing dial-up line with broadband?
I expect people would be singing a different tune if BPL was interfering with the airing of their weekly episode of Friends or whatever is "Must-See" nowadays.
--
"If PCs are hard, then Macs are flaccid" -bb |
|
bplsuck
@midco.net
| reply to jmkraft
Re: Deploy It Already...
bpl is not new in fact it's older than dailup the power company have been useing this with computers since the 1965.
but not that widely useed everwhere so interference is not big but it is there. if you have it everwhere not just ham radio get interference so does police and fire and miltary radios get interference so for get high speed internet at the cost that if some one has fire in there house and can't get out and the fire deptment can't use radio to find there way to this fire or injuryed person and if for some reason all the cell phone towers go down. you have a very big problem. Cell phone can all so get interfered with near bpl repeaters. dailup internet is cheap slow but safe. dsl is still new to the market and so is cable, and satelite is new. high speed internet should be made interference free and if that's not having bpl maybe thats a good thing if you have to weight the costs of having it and problems it causes. |
|
lowiq88-user2
@nyc.n
| What I'd like to know...
What I'd like to know is if there is a legitimate answer to this and I definitely know that someone here is privy : Here goes... Why is dial-up limited to 56k? For my whole computing life, it was (still is) my belief that the FCC put a restriction on it so as not to cause interference. So, when did that happen (if true and I'm correct)? Maybe 20 years ago? 30 Years ago? Why can't some smart company or government invent a way to send at a higher rate through dial-up with less interference than 20/30 years ago? Comments appreciated. I'm very interested in the correct answers. |
|
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
1 edit | The FCC did not establish this limit. The telco did not want to deliver 56k DU (real 56k du) because they were deliverin 56k frame for about five times as much per month.
They all got together and convinced Congress to pass a law setting a cap on DU bandwidth. That cap is lower than the cap in Japan. In Japan, they use the same modems we use in the US but with different firmware and they get a true 56k.
Why is it limited? Couple of reasons really. Bandwidth is bandwidth. Bits are finite. Certain tasks require certain bandwidths. To digitize and reproduce voice quality audio (300 to 3000) you need only 9600 k/bit/sec. The telco understands that and allocates that much bandwidth for a voice grade line which they sell to you for ~$22.00 per month. Now that data has to be carried over the backbone to go to some other switching site somewhere in the US. In the process of going over that backbone, it takes up bandwidth. Bandwidth costs money. More bandwidth, more money... less bandwidth, less money... OK, so now suddenly you are sending ~56k of data on your voice grade line but the Telco only allocated 9.6k for that line on the backbone... no problem you are just one guy... except you aren't... everyone is doing it... suddenly the cost of the backhaul in terms of bandwidth has just been multiplied by a factor of 5 or 6... but you are still paying the same price...
and that is why you're 56k connection is limited to 52k... because the telephone company gave you as much free bandwidth as they could afford to give you and asked congress to step in and set a cap... and congress did that because they (CONGRESS) are making a killing off the telephone companies... or have you not actually read your bills in the past dozen years or so...
--
Funny, I guess that old war horse was right, he said, "Isn't that why we did it? So nobody HAD to care."
|
|
gruggni
Oxygen Gets You High
join:2003-07-28
Corpus Christi, TX
| reply to dadkins
Re: The market
sarcasim on
Damn the ham operators, I want to download porn faster. Screw the communications benefit, I want to steaming music, damn it. Let's break an already functioning means of communication. Destruction leads to creation.
sarcasim off
But really Folkes,
Money is the motivation here. A few more customers paying a monthly few is more important than ham radio. It's all about money, the power of the almighty dollar. Tunnel vision lined with $$$$$$$$$, the road to more customers means screwing over the little guys. Ham radio vs potential customers, the potential for money will win, unless ham radio operators join together and pay for a legal campaign against bpl. It will take millions to stop BPL unless they can prove it harmful or dangerous. It all comes down to money and time spent on lawyers and research. Money that could be used for better things.
Ham radio is up against a tough opponent. This opponent is blinded by money. Destroy ham radio so people can pay $30+ so they can surf the web faster. Or course some of these people with dialup REALLY need to update their windows boxes, the only benefit is giving them broadband so they can patch their ancient system from bugs. The internet is more dangerous than ham radio and corporations what their money regardless.
--
"I'm sick of following my dreams man; I'm just going to ask where they're going and hook up with them later."- Mitch Hedberg |
|
lowiq88-user2
@nyc.n | reply to DaDogs
Re: What I'd like to know...
Thanks man. Makes more sense to me now, for sure. |
|
redxii
too big to fail
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
Texas | reply to dadkins
Re: The market
I found this, not only ham radio:
»www.ecjones.org/BPL.html |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to dadkins
I have been a HAM operator for over 13 years. I have been using computers for longer. I didn't get broadband until 2 years ago.
Now as for your comment "screw everyone else, eh?", HAMS have NEVER been that way. All the HAMS have wanted was peaceful co-existence. Unfortunately, BPL is a very hard neighbor to live with. |
|
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
1 edit | reply to bplsuck
Re: Deploy It Already...
Strike |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | muddy
Why dont they work on getting the speeds up over 512kbps[realworld] before muddying the airwaves with all this interference with BPL?
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
