 moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Gee, talk about sugar coating it...... Yep, not one mention of any possible interference problems.
They do mention that this is "new" technology and there will be "bumps in the road." Little do they know. 
Also, look at the problem that some customers have been having with not all of their electrical outlets being about to get their connection.
Plus, as a side note, I wonder how long the WiFi part will remain free and open if their is no money made on it. | |
|  | 
bugle533
join:2004-06-16
Schaumburg, IL
| Re: Gee, talk about sugar coating it...... said by moonpuppy  :Yep, not one mention of any possible interference problems. From the Cincinnati Enquirer:
"Joe Phillips of Fairfield, the Ohio section chief for the American Radio Relay League, says that so far the Cinergy roll-out hasn't created the radio interference many ham radio operators had feared." | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | Re: Gee, talk about sugar coating it...... Now that is weird. Didn't see that part of the article the first time around. 
Maybe this browser didn't fully load the page or the work proxy has been acting up again. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 
california 4 BPL
@optonline.net
| Bill allow Internet over power lines in TEXAS RE: »news.search.yahoo.com/news/searc···=20&fl=0
Bill would allow Internet over power lines
By R.A. Dyer
Star-Telegram Austin Bureau
AUSTIN - High-speed Internet could be wired into Texas homes through utility power lines -- meaning more homes would get access to the technology -- under a bill pending in the Texas Senate.
But there's a catch: As currently written, the legislation could spread the multimillion-dollar cost to all utility customers -- even those who don't need Internet service or want it. The utility would then get to keep 60 percent of any resulting profit -- while only 40 percent would be returned to electric customers through a credit on their bills.
Utility representatives say the legislation makes sense, consumer groups say it's a bad deal for customers, and the Republican lawmaker who is carrying the bill said controversial details are likely to change before it becomes law.
"The theory is to try to get broadband to areas that are not currently being served by DSL or cable companies -- to get another choice out there," said state Rep. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, about Senate Bill 1748.
Welcome to the complicated world of broadband over power lines, or BPL, which holds the promise of spreading Internet service to the farthest reaches of the state -- but which also carries a substantial price tag.
With BPL, special equipment known as nodes would be connected to power lines that run between electric substations and individual homes or businesses. The nodes would inject the Internet signal into the power lines; individuals would receive that signal through modems.
A company called Broadband Horizons has already begun serving about 25 businesses through pilot projects in two small Central Texas towns, Burnett and Weimar. Mike Bates, the company's vice president, says the new technology works -- although it's not yet economically feasible to serve isolated homes.
He estimates the cost of equipment upgrades at $300 to $400 per house. Others have put the cost at about $1,000 per home.
"We find this technology conducive to bringing broadband service to [small and medium-sized] communities -- the underserved communities -- primarily because the line is already there," Bates said. "We've been up and running since last summer [with the pilot projects], and the results have been very good."
Universal access
On at least one point, consumer and utility groups agree: The reach of the Internet should be extended as far as possible. Tom Morstad, a policy analyst for the Austin office of Consumers Union, likened the goal of "universal" Internet access to the rural electrification projects of the last century.
"The state should certainly continue to explore alternatives for expanding broadband access statewide," Morstad said. "Broadband is to the 21st century what telephone and electric service was to the last century. This is economic development. It's tele-medicine, and it's education."
But where consumer and industry groups part ways is on how Texas should get there -- and who should foot the bill. Many detractors believe that the new technology is being oversold and -- despite the limited pilot projects -- remains largely unproven.
They also complain that under the deal that TXU and some utilities want -- the plan as outlined in the initial Fraser bill -- power companies could get into this very risky venture at no risk to themselves.
Rather, the utilities could pass on 100 percent of the upgrade costs to their electric customers, and then reap 60 percent of the profits. Electric ratepayers would receive the remaining 40 percent through a credit on their bills.
"That is what offends me the most," said Geoffrey Gay, an attorney who represents Fort Worth in utility matters. "It's not just the silliness of making the electric customer pay the cost -- but that [the utility] can make profit off this through some other mechanism, and then tell the ratepayers that they can get credit for just 40 percent. That's really offensive."
But Stephen J. Houle, TXU's vice president for corporate technology, said passing on the cost to electric customers makes sense because BPL potentially improves the overall efficiency of the utility's electric operations.
For instance, broadband over power lines can let utilities remotely monitor their electric substations, it allows them to detect equipment failures and it can provide technicians with real-time data about equipment operations in remote locations, Houle said.
Houle estimated the cost at $300 million to $600 million to make BPL available throughout TXU's North Texas service territory. "Hopefully, after we get this installed and you get just outstanding service ... you'll be so happy that you'll think it's a bargain," he said.
He said that under Fraser's bill, utilities could lease out their lines to independent BPL operators -- theoretically at little or no cost to ratepayers.
Fraser, chairman of the Senate Business and Commerce Committee, described the legislation as a starting point for discussion. He said that the bill was brought to him by utility representatives and that the final version will incorporate changes to protect consumers.
"The intent is not to spread the cost to everybody over the system -- that is not what we're trying to do," Fraser said. "This is an unproven technology -- there are pilot programs going forward, but we don't know for sure if this technology is going to work."
But he said it's important to consider BPL because of the potential to extend the Internet's reach, and because it could eventually lead to lower Internet prices by bringing more competitors to the market.
"The technology is not there yet, but it could be over the long range that all services for the home -- electric, telecom, cable and high-speed Internet -- possibly could be delivered from the same source and could be monitored from a remote location," Fraser said. "But what we can't do is give the [electric utilities] an unfair competitive edge."
Senate Bill 1748 will probably come up for discussion in Fraser's Business and Commerce committee within a few weeks. | |
| | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Bill allow Internet over power lines in TEXAS said by california 4 BPL:
But there's a catch: As currently written, the legislation could spread the multimillion-dollar cost to all utility customers -- even those who don't need Internet service or want it. The utility would then get to keep 60 percent of any resulting profit -- while only 40 percent would be returned to electric customers through a credit on their bills.
That's nice. Now, even though I already have cable or DSL (or don't want any high speed access), I have to pay for it. 
For all the anonymous trolling you do for the BPL industry, this is not a way to win people to your side. Why should I pay for something I do not need or want?
If you think the utility companies are going to let this provision slide, you are sorely mistaken. | |
| | | | | | | 
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by california 4 BPL:RE: » news.search.yahoo.com/news/searc···=20&fl=0"The theory is to try to get broadband to areas that are not currently being served by DSL or cable companies -- to get another choice out there," said state Rep. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, about Senate Bill 1748. There's a reason there isn't cable and DSL in such areas - it's the lack of profitability!
"We find this technology conducive to bringing broadband service to [small and medium-sized] communities -- the underserved communities -- primarily because the line is already there," Bates said. "We've been up and running since last summer [with the pilot projects], and the results have been very good."
This is like saying I can get to the moon because I have a concrete launch pad, but the rocket needs to be built yet. There's also copper twisted pairs to nearly every home in the country, too. So why don't we have DSL everywhere? BPL has more distance limitations than DSL and is the worst suited for rural broadband delivery than all the broadband technologies. | |
| | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by bugle533 :said by moonpuppy :Yep, not one mention of any possible interference problems. From the Cincinnati Enquirer: "Joe Phillips of Fairfield, the Ohio section chief for the American Radio Relay League, says that so far the Cinergy roll-out hasn't created the radio interference many ham radio operators had feared." It's been rumored that Cinergy has stayed out of the HF radio spectrum (1-30 Mhz), so this would explain why there hasn't been interference issues with ham radio operators. | |
| | | | 
JKrums
join:2002-03-18
Allentown, PA | Re: Gee, talk about sugar coating it...... BPL has, in all cases I know of, not caused any harmfull interference with HAM Radio operators. True, the potential exists, but welcome to any technology using RF. | |
| | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: Gee, talk about sugar coating it...... said by JKrums :BPL has, in all cases I know of, not caused any harmfull interference with HAM Radio operators. True, the potential exists, but welcome to any technology using RF. There has been interference at several sites. Three sites were shut down with open interference complaints, and there are numerous filings with the FCC »p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/NPRM_hyperlinks.html . The potential has been modeled and proven to exist in the field. The way to make interference not occur is to not use frequencies used by licensees in the area. | |
| | | | | N3EVL
join:2004-12-13
Shrewsbury, MA
| said by JKrums :BPL has, in all cases I know of, not caused any harmfull interference with HAM Radio operators. True, the potential exists, but welcome to any technology using RF. I'd be interested in knowing which specific trials you're referring to. The cases of actual interference have been well documented as has the lack of action by the FCC and the BPL industry's sad attempts at denial.
I'm puzzled by your last sentence - are you implying that BPL's potential for causing interference is something we (legitimate spectrum users) should just meekly accept? If so, what is the basis of this statement? | |
| | | | | | revuney
join:2003-03-22
Somerville, MA
| Re: Gee, talk about sugar coating it...... Honestly, I see the Hams/ARRL being shut out on this eventually. The BPL industry has or will have better legislators, and they might just force a spectrum share or have the FCC ignore the hams.
Personally I think the hams are a bit "The sky is falling" about this, but at the same time, they are getting shafted just a bit... | |
| | | | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: Gee, talk about sugar coating it...... said by revuney :Honestly, I see the Hams/ARRL being shut out on this eventually. The BPL industry has or will have better legislators, and they might just force a spectrum share or have the FCC ignore the hams. FCC Commissioner Powell was their ace in the pocket. He's gone now. For the hams to get shut out, it would require regulation changes that would cause the US to be in violation of international treaties. It would also put in danger other services in the HF radio bands. But the FCC can't do this since the NTIA pushed the FCC to prohibit BPL in several aeronautical bands. In essence the FCC would be giving primary status to something they already acknowledged would be detrimental to the services in the HF band.
Personally I think the hams are a bit "The sky is falling" about this, but at the same time, they are getting shafted just a bit...
It depends if the meteorite is heading for your house or the neighbor's  | |
| | | | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
edit:
April 25th, @01:20PM
| They probably moved it to the frequencies used by the fast food drive up windows.
"I want a triple with cheese no mayo, no ketchup, diet coke and please Biggie size it.
All this time the Wendy's employee hears BUZZZZZZ!!!*^*^%*
Snap-snap-snap wizz bang pow. Making a good faith effort
this poor person fills the order.
the customer looks at his order....Hey I didn't order no dam salad....;)
--
Low voltage Tech's are wimps, Real tech's use 45 pound filament transformers, plate voltages no less then 2400 volts with at least 10 amp's lighting 8877 triodes...BPL I'm coming to get you.
| |
| | | | | 
FTCXtreme
join:2005-03-14
New Braintree, MA | Re: Gee, talk about sugar coating it...... I thought fast food things were wired. That woudl be funny if someone was DLing a porn video and all of a sudden they hear sex noises on the fast food mics. LMAO | |
| | | | | | | | | | N3EVL
join:2004-12-13
Shrewsbury, MA | What flavor of BPL technology are they using at this site? Specifically, what frequency range? The only non-HF flavor that I'm familiar with is the Corridor Systems product that uses Microwave and, as far as I know is well behaved. | |
| | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: Gee, talk about sugar coating it...... said by N3EVL :What flavor of BPL technology are they using at this site? Specifically, what frequency range? The only non-HF flavor that I'm familiar with is the Corridor Systems product that uses Microwave and, as far as I know is well behaved. Current Technologies is the vendor. It's my understanding they can use HF, but tend not to. Here's a summary of vendors »www.qrpis.org/~k3ng/bpl.html#73 .
If all the equipment manufacturers moved to 30 to 50 Mhz rather than HF, alot of these interference problems could go away. Other than Corridor Systems (which is an entirely different animal) I don't know of any that have made the move. | |
| | | | | | N3EVL
join:2004-12-13
Shrewsbury, MA
| Re: Gee, talk about sugar coating it...... Have the ARRL or any other organization published figures regarding potential for interference from low VHF based BPL systems? I don't remember seeing any. What are the power-line-as-antenna characteristics in this freq range?
My concern would be that they (Cinergy) would permit their system to creep below 30MHz if/when they begin to saturate their current chosen spectrum. | |
| | | | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: Gee, talk about sugar coating it...... said by N3EVL :Have the ARRL or any other organization published figures regarding potential for interference from low VHF based BPL systems? I don't remember seeing any. What are the power-line-as-antenna characteristics in this freq range? My personal opinion is it wouldn't be as bad as HF interference. Most low band VHF is FM, whereas HF is SSB. Receive signal levels are much higher, especially when local repeaters are used. On HF signal levels are often just above the noise floor.
My concern would be that they (Cinergy) would permit their system to creep below 30MHz if/when they begin to saturate their current chosen spectrum.
That's probably why you don't see any BPL manufacturers designing their systems specifically for low band VHF. They're going to need all the spectrum they can get to keep up with bandwidth needs, especially in the face of competition with cable and DSL which are already gearing up for higher speeds. | |
| | | | | | | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| Re: Gee, talk about sugar coating it...... Explanation: Most BPL trials have used one particular Silicon vender. These guys do not notch out the HF ham bands by default, you have to turn it on explicitly. Most utilities must not be doing this: pretty dumb IMHO, since they're deploying in residential neighborhoods, and hams are the one population in residential areas that have alot of very sensitive HF receivers, and are well-organized ('not too many shortwave listeners left, these days, and they're not organized politically like the hams are).
If you look at Current's website, you see they used HomePlug technology. HomePlug notches out the ham bands, just for the above reasons: they didn't want to PO the policially powerful hams, and they knew they were the predominant HF users in most residential areas, and thus were most likely to generate interference complaints. | |
| | | 
yock
Eschew the False Dichotomy
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
edit:
April 25th, @02:51PM
| said by bugle533 :said by moonpuppy :Yep, not one mention of any possible interference problems. From the Cincinnati Enquirer: "Joe Phillips of Fairfield, the Ohio section chief for the American Radio Relay League, says that so far the Cinergy roll-out hasn't created the radio interference many ham radio operators had feared." And we in Fairfield are nowhere near the rollouts.
[edit]It would be interesting to know if he is talking about in Fairfield or if he takes reports from operators in the serviced areas.
--
Search first, ask questions later. | |
| cptmiles
Premium
join:2004-04-22
Swayzee, IN
| Rural BPL Wasn't the premise of BPL to deliver hi speed Internet to the more rural areas cheaper and easier than the phone company? How could they expect to really penetrate a saturate city environment market by giving the same or in most cases less speeds for about the same price? If BPL had the same potential for capacity as fiber I might be a little more understanding, but hasn't it been physically proven that BPL has a maximum transfer rate of a few Meg? If Cinergy really wanted to make a dent they would use their right-of-way power and deploy a serious FTTP product. If I were a Cinergy employee I would be worrying about where my pension is being invested. | |
| | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Rural BPL said by cptmiles :Wasn't the premise of BPL to deliver hi speed Internet to the more rural areas cheaper and easier than the phone company? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks, I needed the laugh.  :D:D:D | |
| |
FTCXtreme
join:2005-03-14
New Braintree, MA
| It was, but its not gonna happen so therefore I dont support BPL. If BPL does work for what its was intended for Hell yess I'd support it, as long as it didn't interfere, I'd support it if i intered with assholes cell phones in public restaurants, I hate them people who dotn turn it off in a restaurant. | |
| | | | |
yock
Eschew the False Dichotomy
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: Rural BPL said by Hall :said by cptmiles :Wasn't the premise of BPL to deliver hi speed Internet to the more rural areas cheaper and easier than the phone company? What's also not noted is the areas they're currently in. I know they started in Hyde Park and I'd guess the other areas are similar in income makeup. Let's just say they ain't low-income 'hoods.... Can you get Cinergy BPL in Over-The-Rhine ?? Not likely... That's what strange about Hyde Park/Oakley, parts of them are very very nice and other parts are slummy. They certainly aren't as bad as OTR though.
--
Search first, ask questions later. | |
| | | | DMWCincy
join:2004-04-27
Fairfield, OH
| Re: Rural BPL said by yock :That's what strange about Hyde Park/Oakley, parts of them are very very nice and other parts are slummy. They certainly aren't as bad as OTR though. I wouldn't be so sure about that. There are parts of Hyde Park and Oakley I wouldn't want to drive in during the day where as I worked at the edge of OTR for a year with no real problems(even during the riots). Like every other neighborhood, its got good and bad parts.
One thing I would like to see with BPL is how effective it is with both ZoomTown(DSL) and Roadrunner available in the same areas. You would think Cinergy would push it out to areas outside the city that isn't being provided service by either of the other companies. | |
| | 
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
edit:
April 25th, @03:05PM
| said by cptmiles :Wasn't the premise of BPL to deliver hi speed Internet to the more rural areas cheaper and easier than the phone company? The premise of BPL is to separate venture capital from it's owner(s) as quickly as possible, without actually having to prove any viable product beforehand. See: Stock swindles.said by cptmiles : If Cinergy really wanted to make a dent they would use their right-of-way power and deploy a serious FTTP product. Cinergy is most likely just a cooperative third party "allowing" Current Communications Group to kite this project in the name of broadband access while Cinergy is eyeing is the ability to deploy automated bidirectional metering devices and load management at the individual customer level. Cinergy couldn't give a rats ass about getting anyone broadband access. Once this is deployed the broadband aspect will fade with the investor's money, while they "re-purpose" the mostly-abandoned infrastructure to their own benefit. At the data rates the utility needs, the interference potential is minimal. | |
| | |
yock
Eschew the False Dichotomy
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: Rural BPL said by RadioDoc :Cinergy is most likely just a cooperative third party "allowing" Current Communications Group to kite this project in the name of broadband access while Cinergy is eyeing is the ability to deploy automated bidirectional metering devices and load management at the individual customer level. Cinergy couldn't give a rats ass about getting anyone broadband access. Once this is deployed the broadband aspect will fade with the investor's money, while they "re-purpose" the mostly-abandoned infrastructure to their own benefit. At the data rates the utility needs, the interference potential is minimal. I think your assessment is right on the money, but don't discount the broadband climate in Cincinnati. We're one of the most competitive areas in the country. Now that Cinci.rr and Columbus.rr combined with woh.rr we're part of the largest Roadrunner subscriber base in the nation (might be second to LA) and Cincinnati Bell has deployed DSL technology that no other DSL provider in the country has. Almost everyone within a few hundred miles of Cincinnati, Dayton, and Columbus has access to sub-$50 3-5Mbit broadband and I bet Cinergy would love a slice of that pie.
--
Search first, ask questions later. | |
| | | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| said by cptmiles :Wasn't the premise of BPL to deliver hi speed Internet to the more rural areas cheaper and easier than the phone company? No, it's all a big pump and dump scheme. Some of these guys are just a little late to the party.
--
Bush/Cheney '04! - Scared Straight
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." | |
| NetEng_Dude
join:2004-07-17
edit:
April 25th, @03:31PM
| Take Rate Must Be Very Poor I can't see how the number of subscribers is sensitive information. Note that they do not have a problem quantifying the number of homes "passed" (for whatever that is really worth, "passed" homes do not generate revenue).
If the numbers were good they would be shouting it from the rooftops. The third-party estimate of 8,000 subscribers out of 50,000 homes "passed" sounds much too generous. My hunch is the real number of customers is a surprisingly small fraction of the estimate.
Same pathetic story for all the BPL deployments including the handful in Europe. Not surprisingly, there are no real BPL success stories. | |
| 
Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH | (Off-topic) Keys to homes ?? From the article:
Today we have keys to over 62,000 Cincinnati area homes so we can go into those homes and read the meter.
Is this common ?? | |
| | ITOscar
join:2004-08-04
Dayton, OH | Re: (Off-topic) Keys to homes ?? I used to read meters for one of the utilities in Ohio and i would say we had at least that many keys to homes. So, i would say yes it is that common. | |
|
Regor53
@bellsouth.net
| Cincy? Wasn't the whole point of BPL to serve rural areas? About every rollout is to densly populated areas served by cable and dsl. Maybe the real objective is to let the power companies get a piece of the broadband pie. Have they ever tried BPL in Kansas? | |
| |
Just_the_facts
@boeing.com
| Re: Cincy? Of course not! Even as technically backward as the BPL manufacturers are, they knew it could never be profitable in a rural environment.
Ex-Chairman Powell had the only real use for BPL. He promoted it so that he could go around shouting 3rd WIRE TO THE HOME! 3rd WIRE TO THE HOME! It allowed him to pretend that there would still be lots of competition as he proceeded with his plan to lock the independent ISP's out of the Baby Bells and cable systems. Once the Brand X case is decided by the Supreme Court, the FCC will quickly any interest in BPL. | |
|
dsl_joe
@ipltin.ameritech |  BPL and Wendy's Chili Controversy
| |
| kc8zum
join:2005-04-27
Cincinnati, OH
|  Cincinnati BPL Website
»www.danielwoodie.com/bpl.htm
Dan Woodie
KC8ZUM | |
| | | |
|
|
Cincinnati: BPL Hotspot
