[lug] OT power line communication

[Paul E Condon]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 08:07:34PM +0000, BOF wrote:
> Paul E Condon wrote:
> 
> >HF is 3 to 30 MHz. VHF is 30 to 300MHz. Are you aware of any technical
> >reason why new developments might make use of these frequencies on
> >open wires possible? Is this *really* what the FCC is proposing to
> >test? And not really much bandwidth anyway. It sounds crazy. Unless,
> >of course, it will screw more Democrats than Republicans. (Not likely.
> >The same laws of physics apply. But who knows what they think.)
> >
> 
> There are no new developments that I know of: the BPL idea is several 
> years old, and with the recent large amounts of money to be found in 
> providing high-speed service to the home (witness the fight between 
> Comcast and Qwest in Denver, in which Qwest has this month halved its 
> rates to attract/retain customers), has apparently cropped up again as a 
> money maker.
> 
> This page does a pretty good job of describing the problems and the conflict
> 
>    http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114135,00.asp
> 
> Not mentioned in this article is that Japan trialed BPL and had to stop 
> it because of problems. See  
> http://www.jarl.or.jp/English/4_Library/A-4-1_News/jn0208.htm.
> 
> And note how disingenous the Current Technologies spokesman in the 
> article is being when he claims that his company's technology, HomePlug, 
> does not interfer with radio. This is because Homeplug is the part 
> inside the home connection and is heavily insulated. He mentions nothing 
> about the interference outside the home on the power lines to get the 
> signal to Homeplug. Certainly, Current Technologies webpage 
> (http://www.currenttechnologies.com/about/history.html) makes some wild 
> claims about BPL in regards to its capabilites: I don't believe that 
> video is yet a working option. There is also apparently much about 
> deploying BPL that the BPL industry is not saying. From comments on the 
> Denver Post article from a Ham forum:
> 
>    Small isolated towns [in Colorado] are probably the worse suited for
>    BPL due to its architecture. BPL has less of a range than DSL and
>    cable. It requires repeaters every 200m or so, each of which are in
>    the $4k to $5k range. Everyone seems to be under the impression that

Repeaters every 200m, i.e. 5 per km or 8 per mile. Where does this come
from? Can you site a URL? (I don't doubt you, but I'd like to start getting
educated about this.) 

And my invitation for NIST people to come forward still stands. 

>    BPL is "plug and play" on the utility side, but it's far from that.
>    It's not a long haul technology, so all of the traffic needs to be
>    backhauled via telco facilities or fiber strung between feedpoints.
>    The business model for BPL in rural areas is very questionable.
>    Chances are if you don't have DSL or cable, you'll never see BPL.
>    Wireless is actually much better suited for covering an area like
>    you're describing and is much more scalable and proven.
> 
>    That's just it, no one will service those areas because it is not
>    financially feasable to do so. No company is going to foot the bill
>    for repeaters, equipment etc., needed to reach small customer bases.
>    It just doesn't make sense financially. However it does make sense
>    to target the more populated communities like Denver/Boulder areas.
> 
> In other words, BPL will probably crop up to compete in areas where 
> telco DSL and cable are already established and where the money is.
> 
> Further notice how the Current Technologies spokesman in the article claims
> 
>    it doesn't make sense for BPL companies like Current Technologies to
>    move forward with their business plans and financing if they're
>    causing interference, because the FCC could immediately shut them
>    down if they did ...
> 
> My personal opinion (and I am a HAM and member of the ARRL, so I am 
> accordingly biased) is that the BPL industry is trying to get the FCC to 
> change the radio interference rules to allow them to operate at the 
> expense of the radio community. So far the FCC seems to be willing to do 
> this in spite of over 5000 unfavorable comments on BPL and opposition 
> from FEMA.
> 
> Of course, it could be that the FCC's opening the BPL issue for comment 
> is to allow the BPL industry a chance to debate the issue before ruling 
> against them.
> 
> But I doubt this very much. The FCC's willingness to screw over the very 
> people they are supposed to protect in favor of business is certainly in 
> line with the current atmosphere in Washington that allows business to 
> write the rules at the expense of the consumer (witness the great 
> success the RIAA has had). And, furthermore, the FCC has a long, long 
> history of yielding to business demands: in the late 1940's they stalled 
> deployment of FM radio in favor of AM under pressure from David Sarnoff 
> of RCA and NBC because of the latter's large network of AM stations. So 
> the precedent is there.

It really was a different set of players in Washington then than
now. There wasn't even a beltway to be inside. In this case there are
surely some important players who will be hurt by this, e.g. the US
Army, which I think makes heavy use of VHF comm. for over the hill
talk between platoon leaders. Or do they not count now that we have
won the war in Iraq?

> 
> BOF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> Join us on IRC: lug.boulder.co.us port=6667 channel=#colug

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon at peakpeak.com