how-to block ads
|
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
| BPL
This technology is suffering the same fate that other technologies have in the past. All because a group of someones found a problem with the technology, and incessantly whine until it has a bad name and nobody wants to pick it up for fear of the bad publicity.
It is a VERY viable solution if implemented properly with the correct technological advancements in appropriately populated areas.
Is it BPL's fault that for so long other companies and their technologies have held an "opoly" over this industry for so many years? NO. Now that a new technology has come along that threatens their pocketbooks, they are willing to stoop to whatever level it takes to prevent it from growing roots, and taking profits from the conglomerates in the long run.
A recent private survey done in north central Indiana asked Utility Companies, and select subscribers to their services if they would be willing to participate in a rollout test. Approximately 79% said they would be willing. When Utility companies were asked why they don't. The most common response was that they had heard a lot of negative (albeit false) reports that the technology was fundamentally flawed. | |
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
 ·Comcast
| said by ctceo  :It is a VERY viable solution if implemented properly with the correct technological advancements in appropriately populated areas. If it was economically viable it would have happened already. The amps/repeaters and conditioning of the lines cost too much in rural low density areas. City areas have DSL and Cable. Regardless of the technical issues it is a limited solution with a limited market.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to ctceo
said by ctceo :This technology is suffering the same fate that other technologies have in the past. All because a group of someones found a problem with the technology, and incessantly whine until it has a bad name and nobody wants to pick it up for fear of the bad publicity. And conversely, this technology has been promoted and pumped to death by vendors, BPL advocacy groups and the FCC. The market and demand for broadband was well established and as has been discussed here ad naseum, there is plenty of demand for coverage in rural areas and competition in suburban and urban areas. To say bad publicity has stopped BPL is laughable and a cop out. The BPL marketing machine has steam-rolled over the well-documented interference issues with the blessing of the FCC.
The industry showed its colors early on in 2003 when it denied the interference problems. One of the first claims was that power lines don't radiate RF energy, despite the fact that a first year electrical engineering student can show you otherwise. It went downhill from there with one questionable claim after another. If anything, the industry fueled bad publicity, sending marketing people to fix engineering problems. Unfortunately, the interference problems are inescapable due to the basis of BPL technology is just outright wrong, putting RF energy on an unshielded medium. The "solution" has been to move the interference around. This has been successful in some areas, but it's not a silver bullet. As bandwidth needs increase, BPL systems will be pressed to use previously notched spectrum.
Outside of interference, there's two real problems with BPL. The economics just aren't there. If utilities could make the model work, they would be doing it, plain and simple. The second issue is that BPL technology is essentially re-inventing yesterday's network tomorrow. Claims from three years ago still haven't been met. Bandwidth requirements are going to increase, not remain the same, and whereas BPL may compete with today's competition, it doesn't stand a chance in tomorrow's broadband world.
Is it BPL's fault that for so long other companies and their technologies have held an "opoly" over this industry for so many years? NO. Now that a new technology has come along that threatens their pocketbooks, they are willing to stoop to whatever level it takes to prevent it from growing roots, and taking profits from the conglomerates in the long run. Show me an instance where an "opoly" company has prevented BPL from growing.
A recent private survey done in north central Indiana asked Utility Companies, and select subscribers to their services if they would be willing to participate in a rollout test. Approximately 79% said they would be willing. When Utility companies were asked why they don't. The most common response was that they had heard a lot of negative (albeit false) reports that the technology was fundamentally flawed.
Care to quote your source for this information from a "private survey"? Let me guess, you're still under that NDA you hide behind any time you're asked for specifics  | |
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
| More like this technology has been slandered to death by it's opposition.
I agree that early versions of the technology were with it's problems, but because of that lobbyists have and still are trying to prevent it from being widely deployed based on those assumptions.
If the economics just aren't there then why are so many utilities and subscribers of their services willing to give it a try.
We all know that the "opoly" companies have their hand so far up some lobbyists butts that they're wiling to do anything for them.
Lastly As stated it was a private survey. The results are scheduled to be released at a local county meeting set for January.
With any luck this disingenuous attack on the technology will cease. We could use more competition in the broadband market especially in places such as downtown and surrounding areas here.
As for my local area. The bureau I work for mailed out more than 30,000 surveys regarding the viability of all types of internet service in my living area. Over 63% were interested in signing up for a trial if one were to have such availability. The local utilities have since commented that they have no future plans to upgrade their services to include any such internet or data connectivity with the exception of simple data networks for their own private use. When asked why. About half refuse to comment. Of the ones who do, very few have been informed properly on the trials, both ones that have failed, and some that are succeeding.
It is sad that a technology with so much promise must undergo such a campaign to prevent it's widespread use. For this I can only hope that it can see the light of day soon. Any technology that stays in the dark long enough regardless the reasons (true & false alike) are harder to deploy. | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
edit:
December 1st, @09:22PM
| said by ctceo :I agree that early versions of the technology were with it's problems, but because of that lobbyists have and still are trying to prevent it from being widely deployed based on those assumptions. What's so different between early and recent versions? Frequency notching and chipset speeds. Notching isn't a panacea for wireless spectrum licensees or the BPL carrier and we have yet to see greater than DSL and cable speeds offered.
If the economics just aren't there then why are so many utilities and subscribers of their services willing to give it a try. "Willing to give it a try" and actually doing it are two different things. I'd be willing to give a Hummer H3 a try. My gas budget brings me back to reality that it's just not practical or economically feasible.
Utility subscribers would try broadband over sewer if the price was right.
We all know that the "opoly" companies have their hand so far up some lobbyists butts that they're wiling to do anything for them. If we all know it, prove it. What "opoly" companies are stopping BPL?
Lastly As stated it was a private survey. The results are scheduled to be released at a local county meeting set for January. Ah, the dog and pony show. Putting together a PowerPoint?
With any luck this disingenuous attack on the technology will cease. We could use more competition in the broadband market especially in places such as downtown and surrounding areas here.
A disingenuous attack would be something like "BPL sux!". There may be some of that going on here on BBR, but all of the people concerned with interference issues that I'm aware of have merits to their arguments and avoid such attacks. Truly disingenuous attacks are wrong, but I challenge you to cite any such attacks from reputable posters in this forum or from organizations such as ARRL.
As for my local area. The bureau I work for mailed out more than 30,000 surveys regarding the viability of all types of internet service in my living area. Over 63% were interested in signing up for a trial if one were to have such availability. The local utilities have since commented that they have no future plans to upgrade their services to include any such internet or data connectivity with the exception of simple data networks for their own private use. When asked why. About half refuse to comment. Of the ones who do, very few have been informed properly on the trials, both ones that have failed, and some that are succeeding. First off, you need to understand who you're surveying. If you asked 30K people in a neighborhood about BPL and framed it in a way like all the talking heads have (cheaper, faster, Internet available anywhere there's an outlet), I'm sure everyone would say yes. Most people could care less where their Internet comes from. Framed the right way any survey will elicit the response you're looking for.
You give the utilities less credit than I think they're due. It's reasonable that most have assigned full time people to research BPL and attend BPL forums, most of which are sponsored and run by advocacy groups. These forums are usually packed with speakers from utilities conducting trials and even running commercial systems. Any utility that hasn't been "informed properly" by your definition of the words probably doesn't have the resources, business savvy, or wherewith-all to even deploy BPL.
It is sad that a technology with so much promise must undergo such a campaign to prevent it's widespread use. For this I can only hope that it can see the light of day soon. Any technology that stays in the dark long enough regardless the reasons (true & false alike) are harder to deploy.
Again, the "campaign" claim is a cop out. If BPL was economically and technically viable, it would be everywhere after three years of lobbying that has exceeded anything we saw during the initial days of DSL or cable. Even you, someone who frequents BBR, would know that the interference issues and its impact pale in comparison to the demand for broadband. The posts by some people here show that unfortunately most could care less if their broadband killed cute little kittens (no offense, meow ), as long as it was fast and cheap. But despite years of promotion, FCC cheerleading, and voracious customer demand for broadband, BPL customer numbers are still well below 10K. BPL has already seen the light of day and hasn't delivered. It's time to let it go. | |
BPL 200 Mbps
join:2006-11-05
Toms River, NJ
|  reply to ctceo
an example...
AT&T and Current Communications Settle Dispute over Current`s plans to use power lines for broadband !!!
...
AT&T, Current settle utility pole dispute
Internet provider to notify phone company of installation plans
11:04 PM CST on Tuesday, November 21, 2006
By CRAYTON HARRISON / The Dallas Morning News
A dispute that threatened to delay a new kind of broadband Internet service in Texas has been resolved, putting the provider back on track toward launching service in the Dallas area.
AT&T Inc. said Tuesday that it has settled its argument with Current Communications Group Inc., which wants to offer high-speed Internet services over TXU Corp.'s power lines.
AT&T plans to drop a lawsuit against Current, and Current will withdraw a complaint against AT&T at the Texas Public Utility Commission, said AT&T spokesman Kerry Hibbs.
Current spokeswoman Melissa Kresse confirmed details of the settlement.
Earlier this month, AT&T obtained a temporary restraining order to prevent Current from installing equipment on AT&T- owned utility poles. San Antonio-based AT&T was concerned about the location of the equipment and whether it violated safety standards.
In the settlement, Current agreed to notify AT&T in advance which poles it planned to use, Mr. Hibbs said.
Current told AT&T it has installed equipment on 520 poles along 23 miles in the University Park and Highland Park areas, Mr. Hibbs said. Ms. Kresse said the company had no comment on those figures.
The settlement allows Current to work toward its goal of offering broadband over TXU's power lines.
Next month, the company expects to offer diagnostic services to TXU's electric delivery unit. It's not clear when Current plans to begin offering broadband access to consumers.
In its PUC complaint, Current had accused AT&T, which also offers broadband service, of stifling competition.
"This was never about competition," Mr. Hibbs said. "It really was about trespassing and breach of contract."
TXU's electric delivery unit and Current announced their plans for the broadband service in late 2005.
Privately held Current, based in Maryland, is paying for the enhancements to the grid. Dallas-based TXU is paying Current $150 million over 10 years and bought a small, undisclosed stake in the company in May.
Source: »xrl.us/teiv
--
Unleash the opportunities of a “Smart Grid”, IPTV and in-home networking for business optimisation to impact your bottom-line. Leverage the commercial opportunities of PLC with killer applications & services: in-home MDU networking, IPTV and triple-play. | |
BPL 200 Mbps
join:2006-11-05
Toms River, NJ
| CONT`N...
BPL Company -"Current Comm. had accused AT&T of trying to stifle competition"
AT&T battles TXU partner
Firms clash over plans to use power lines for broadband
11:56 PM CST on Friday, November 3, 2006
By CRAYTON HARRISON / The Dallas Morning News
READ: »xrl.us/tmkw
enjoy !!!
--
Unleash the opportunities of a SYMMETRICAL 200Mbps “Smart Grid”, IPTV and in-home networking for business optimisation of your commercial opportunities of BPL/PLC with killer applications & services: in-home MDU networking, IPTV and triple-play... !!! | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to BPL 200 Mbps
said by BPL 200 Mbps :an example... AT&T and Current Communications Settle Dispute over Current`s plans to use power lines for broadband !!! ... AT&T, Current settle utility pole dispute Internet provider to notify phone company of installation plans BZZZZZZZT!!!!!!! Wrong answer!!!!! AT&T partnered with a utility back in 2003 or so in Menlo Park, California on a BPL project (they ended up pulling out due to business reasons). AT&T also funded the Penn State BPL study which you BPL fans love to quote; remember - the one that says BPL can do 1 Gbps?????!!!! ( »www.psu.edu/ur/2005/powerline.html ) Also, AT&T stated that the issue with Current was purely contractional and had nothing to do with impeding their progress. And it was resolved within several days. AT&T is doing a pretty lousy job stopping BPL -- they partnered in a BPL trial, they funded one of your favorite positive BPL studies, and they resolved a contract dispute in days rather than months or years.
Try again and do some research this time!!!!!!!!!!! | |
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
| I've given more proof than necessary, and need not follow it up with more fact than already presented.
BPL 200mbps stated a good article from earlier last month and you responded with "Wrong Answer" which it was. I'm sorry you feel that way.
We inform customers of the broadband options that are currently available, ALL OF THEM. Some people don't want faster internet. In fact we indirectly advertise for every ISP in the areas we operate in. And try to come to an agreement on which types of internet are suited to areas in an around those sites.
As an example we demonstrated to interested customers, the advantages of later generation BPL technologies, Showing that under the wrong conditions how poor equipment and deployment can cause some problems within a small radius of the faulty equipment or installation. We also demonstrated how other NON FCC regulated devices and other things can easily cause 100x more interference than BPL subscribers should ever be worried about.
Unless there is good reason to continue disputing the validity, feasibility, and economics of BPL (which there isn't). It will work if given the chance. | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by ctceo :I've given more proof than necessary, and need not follow it up with more fact than already presented. You've posted a claim and no proof, same as usual.
BPL 200mbps stated a good article from earlier last month and you responded with "Wrong Answer" which it was. I'm sorry you feel that way. What's to be sorry about? I asked for proof that the "opoly" companies are stopping BPL. He apparently responded and posted an article about AT&T and Current's spat, which doesn't prove a thing, and AT&T's record with BPL speaks to the contrary of the point he was making.
As an example we demonstrated to interested customers, the advantages of later generation BPL technologies, Showing that under the wrong conditions how poor equipment and deployment can cause some problems within a small radius of the faulty equipment or installation. We also demonstrated how other NON FCC regulated devices and other things can easily cause 100x more interference than BPL subscribers should ever be worried about. First off, any device that emits RF in the US is regulated by the FCC. Your "other interference sources" tactic is misleading. One can show numerous other devices that make more interference than BPL. This is irrelevant. BPL is so much different from the typical point-source RF emitters out there you're comparing it with. The vast majority if not all of them aren't on 24x7, broadbanded, and on what is essentially an antenna system that spans miles. And regardless if there's worse interference sources in existence, BPL still has to comply with the Part 15 non-interference clause. Also, anyone can make bad or badly adjusted equipment do nasty things, that's no surprise. The fact still remains that BPL, properly adjusted, will always emit whatever frequencies are on the line into the air. All you can do is notch out bands so that certain frequencies aren't used.
Obviously I haven't heard your entire sales pitch, but one should be really concerned if the rest of it is like what you've posted above.
Unless there is good reason to continue disputing the validity, feasibility, and economics of BPL (which there isn't). It will work if given the chance.
There's always good reasons to question anything, especially when things don't add up. But regardless of our debates here, the number of deployments and customers after nine years of development and three years of marketing in the US speak for themselves. Short of giving away the equipment, it's been given a chance. | |
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
| reply to ctceo
Here is one good article that shows that the "opolies", albeit indirectly. Have their strings tied somewhere.
»www.commondreams.org/news2005/0613-23.htm
Ther are also a lot of good informative articles here:
»www.etopiamedia.net/bplw/pages/b···12.html/ | |
BPL 200 Mbps
join:2006-11-05
Toms River, NJ | reply to halfband
7 U.S. Commercial BPL rollouts and 38 ongoing trials !!! | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to ctceo
Very indirectly. This is pertaining to muni systems. BPL can be used to provide service in muni systems, but so can wireless. Muni isn't exclusively BPL, and arguably there's more potential for wireless than BPL in muni systems.
If you think about it, power companies have the ultimate monopoly. You can do without cable TV and even phone service, and if you consider VoIP, there's plenty of alternatives to POTS service. Other than put up solar panels or wind power generators or becoming Amish, there's not much of an alternative to power service. Also, power companies (at least here in PA) can put a line wherever they like.
Part of the marketing of BPL has been "power lines are everywhere, so BPL will be everywhere." While this is a misleading selling point since a lot of equipment is needed to light up a power line with BPL, I think it illustrates just how flawed the "opolies are holding back BPL" argument is. Powerlines are everywhere and power utilities can leverage that.
I'm sure the opolies don't like another competitor in town, just like any business doesn't, but they haven't done much to stop BPL. They could have supported the interests that were raising the interference issues during the various FCC proceedings. They didn't.
Etopia has been a good source of information. But notice even their volume of BPL related articles has significantly decreased over the past year. | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to BPL 200 Mbps
said by BPL 200 Mbps :7 U.S. Commercial BPL rollouts and 38 ongoing trials !!! And yet only less than 10,000 customers. Cable and DSL each activate more customers per day than BPL has during its entire life in the US.
An apartment building getting BPL or a new experimental license being issued is still major news in the BPL world, worthy of press releases and fanfare. If cable or DSL would have evolved at the same pace as BPL, we'd all still be on dial up and ISDN circuits.
By the way, what are the seven commercial systems? (There may be that many, but I can think of only four at the moment.) | |
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
edit:
December 5th, @06:57AM
| reply to rf_engineer
Quite directly actually. The problem with wireless is Line of sight problems here in this area. We are located where the glaciers receded, and have a lot of rolling hills preventing line of sight to quite a few. BPL would solve that problem.
And if the other monopolies think about it, maybe it's that fear that is keeping them hot on the tails of any test bed. After all, if they know that their top place positions could be so easily taken that's why it makes sense for them to prevent competition of any kind, at pretty much any cost.
I agree that some companies are very misleading with tactics regarding the ideal localities which are suitable for BPL rollout as well as the technologies they would be using to do so. But I assure you we are not. And is it fair that successful technologies get punished just because of problems with the first installations? No. BPL should be given just as much time and test space as every other technology.
I'm quite sure that other "opolies" have paid for more than adequate lobbying or bribing to prevent companies, persons, and the like from making BPL related decisions that would allow it to be deployed in quite a significant amount of areas.
It is a shame that BPL is taking so long to get rolling. But the causes are direct complaints from lobbying organizations, bribes, and disingenuous attacks on even the newer BPL technology based on it's past designs, and flaws. | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by ctceo :Quite directly actually. The problem with wireless is Line of sight problems here in this area. We are located where the glaciers receded, and have a lot of rolling hills preventing line of sight to quite a few. BPL would solve that problem. Again, BPL is not muni. BPL is one way of providing muni service. You claimed opolies are holding back BPL, not munis. If you want to backtrack and say that opolies are holding back munis, or show something other than "everyone knows the man is sticking it to BPL" claims, now is your opportunity. Otherwise you're making a disingenuous attack, as you would say.
And if the other monopolies think about it, maybe it's that fear that is keeping them hot on the tails of any test bed. After all, if they know that their top place positions could be so easily taken that's why it makes sense for them to prevent competition of any kind, at pretty much any cost.
If their top place positions could be so easily taken, then why don't the BPL carriers just do it already? I mean, really, anyone with any business savvy whatsoever would see the opportunity and take the lead.
I agree that some companies are very misleading with tactics regarding the ideal localities which are suitable for BPL rollout as well as the technologies they would be using to do so. But I assure you we are not. And is it fair that successful technologies get punished just because of problems with the first installations? No. BPL should be given just as much time and test space as every other technology. No one is stopping trials. The only time limits are those imposed by the competition. Technologies that can get past their initial failures become successful. The FCC paved the way for BPL and essentially removed technical hurdles and deregulated it, while promoting it whenever possible for two years. What more do you want, national airtime during the Superbowl?
I'm quite sure that other "opolies" have paid for more than adequate lobbying or bribing to prevent companies, persons, and the like from making BPL related decisions that would allow it to be deployed in quite a significant amount of areas. And the same could be said about the BPL industry and the FCC's promotion of BPL. Powell took about every opportunity he could to promote BPL. The NTIA's own reports on BPL interference were quite damning, but the FCC sidestepped every issue. The FCC rerouted all interference complaints to the Office of Engineering & Technology, and not Enforcement. The FCC looked the other way when several experimental license holders didn't file reports periodically as required. BPL database rule infractions in the form of bad data or missed filings were ignored. Ex parte presentations from BPL interests abounded before all rulemakings. Powell attended a BPL demonstration days before a ruling on BPL regulations, an act that was claimed to be violation of Sunshine Act rules. And then there's the latest rule the FCC introduced (15.611(iii)) that gives BPL providers immunity from mobile interference complaints when they drop emissions 20dB below limits, a rule that was never released before for public comment and is in direct conflict with harmful interference language. If you want to talk about something fishy, look at the FCC's record regarding BPL over the past four years. I'm not saying or implying the FCC was bribed or any BPL interest has engaged in illegal activity as you're claiming about opolies, my point is there's much more evidence to lead one to conspiracy theories that have benefited BPL. You don't have anything that remotely supports your frivolous claims.
It is a shame that BPL is taking so long to get rolling. But the causes are direct complaints from lobbying organizations, bribes, and disingenuous attacks on even the newer BPL technology based on it's past designs, and flaws.
Well, I guess you have to blame someone or something, even if it's baseless unprovable claims. It certainly couldn't be a problem with BPL or its marketing. | |
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs: | I'm sorry you feel that way. | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by ctceo :I'm sorry you feel that way. You should be more sorry you don't have anything to rebut with. You're making claims here you can't back up. | |
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT | reply to ctceo
And a lot of good informative articles are linked at:
»www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/o···tml#2006
Ed | |
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| reply to ctceo
said by ctceo :It is a shame that BPL is taking so long to get rolling. But the causes are direct complaints from lobbying organizations, bribes, and disingenuous attacks on even the newer BPL technology based on it's past designs, and flaws. An example of the latest "attack" from ARRL, as posted on the BPLandHamRadio@yahoogroups.com list:
"Don't sell that 2nd-generation too short! So far, I have seen two such systems up close and it is clear that from an From an amateur-radio perspective, they are better than the G1 systems.
"The best example of that is in Houston. I was there last week, and I found that most of the Corinex BPL nodes I tested were at or under the FCC emissions limits. In this system, all of the nodes are reported to be notched in the ham bands, and from what I saw, that appears to be the case.
"In the majority of the system that was "FCC-legal," the BPL noise was loud and clear outside the ham bands, but when I parked a mobile station right under the injector on the pole, in the ham bands, the noise was inaudibile or just barely audible (and inaudible 100 feet up the road).
"A fixed station had filed a formal complaint with the FCC. Thanks to the good work of the CenterPoint utility engineer, the utility response was fast and, after a couple of weeks of trying different things, effective. I went to the Amateur station, and we had him point his Yagi at the power lines 150 feet away. The BPL system was not audible in the ham bands.
"I am reporting the emissions-limits violations to CenterPoint, with the expectation that they will take a close look at the issue and correct any problems.
"We are fortunate that we have a good electric utility working on this issue, as it is likely that if they were not solidly behind not causing interference, the usual round of denials probably would have happened.
"The other G2 DS2 systems could be just as good (and possibly are), but unfortunately, the rest of the industry is not generally willing to take the next steps and work with ARRL to solidly demonstrate this improved capability. I personally think they are afraid of loose ends, such as the emissions problems I described above, but ARRL will find and report they with our without cooperation, and IMHO, a report such as the above has its credibility enhanced by a wart or two, especially with an accompanying report that the BPL operator has been cooperative and will contiue that cooperation by fixing any problems found.
"Ed, W1RFI/0"
Ed Hare, ARRL | |
|
