In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:

So much for "no other method to serve the unserved areas but BPL".

Did anyone actually say that? It's highly inaccurate if they did.

I think the actual buzzphrase is "arease underserved by broadband" or some
such.

The image depicted is that there are large parts of the USA where broadband
access is either unavailable or very expensive. That's partly true - just as
it's true that there are parts of the USA where cable TV is unavailable, and
parts where underground natural gas service is unavailable. Etc.

The *implication* is that BPL will somehow fill in those gaps, but in ost cases
that's not really the case - for the saem reasons competing technologies don;t
serve those areas yet.

I
think there is a vision of just sending the signals over the power lines
and boy howdy, an instant nationwide network, everywhere there is a
power line, "you have mail!"

Exactly.Just like there was a vision of next-generation satellite phones that
would let all of us place phone calls from anywhere in the world via a network
of low-eart-orbit satellites. That vision worked - but it wasn't inexpensive!

In truth, a fiber has to be run to somewhere near the house that is
going to be served, so that means that rural areas will not be any
easier to serve than they are now.

And that's just the first problem. Once the fiber gets there, other competing
technologies could use it, too. Including WiFi, as described by K2ASP.

Then there's the fact that the HF losses on power lines are so high that BPL
systems need a repeater every few thousand feet. In rural areas that may mean a
repeater for each customer, or more. Plus couplers and other hardware for
*each* customer.

73 de Jim, N2EY