In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

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.

The slides I've seen presented by BPL marketing fluff folks show repeaters
every
300 meters ... that's a hell of a lot of repeaters to "serve rural America"
... yet they
claimed in the same presentation that it was "low cost because no
infrastructure was
required because the wires were already (presumably) there."

I pointed to their block diagrams with fiber to the area, "head-ends" to go
from fiber
to the MV/HV lines, repeaters every 300 meters, couplers, etc. and asked
"How can
you claim with a straight face that this "doesn't require the installation
of infrastructure?""

Good work!

Right there is the evidence that the proponents are being less than
accurate in their portrayal of BPL.

It just means they define "infrastructure" differently.

They don't consider the addition of fiber, taps or bypass couplers to be
"installation of infrastructure". They do consider ahving to run actual wires,
particularly into subscribers' homes, as "instalation of infrastructure".

Running the last mile of wire is expensive because of all the labor involved.
Running the last couple of dozen/hundred feet into the subscriber's house or
business is even more expensive because of the labor and having to work in
somebody's house or business. The liability is high, too.

Since BPL is slower than some other broadband services, and the
infrastructure appears to be similar to running fiber, is the slowing
attributed to the "existing infrastructure" part of the line?

As I understand it, none of the systems uses the whole 2-80 MHz spectrum at the
same time. This is because you couldn't "repeat" (amplify) without interfering
with yourself. So a system might use, say, 30-40 MHz in one length of line,
then translate to, say, 15-25 MHz for the next length so that the MV line
doesn't have to break.

It appears that in the Penn Yan system, only one set of frequencies is used
because the system only goes about 9 blocks.

I'm ignorant of the finer details of BPL, so I may be way off here.

Seems like if they have to run fiber, and do all the repeaters, etc.
why not just........ run fiber and put the signals into the houses as
they should be?

Because of the cost of getting the fiber in the houses, and the terminal
equipment once it gets there. And back at the office.

To my way of thinking, the "best" answer with current technology lies in the
various "Wi-Fi" ("wireless") technologies. No installation cost in the
subscriber homes or businesses, no RFI issues, lots of bandwidth, and will even
work with a lapper that isn't plugged in.

More than 15 years ago, I was talking about how we should each have a "personal
fiber" that would handle all our comm needs - telephone, data, TV, etc. No EMI
or RFI because it's light! But between the installation and equipment costs
it's just not feasible. Yet.

There was also the fact that regulations prohibit certain things, in an
attemprt to prevent monopolies. At least back then, a telephone company could
not offer "cable" TV, and the cable company could not offer telephone service,
because of federal regulations.

Any good sources of the nitty-gritty of BPL technology?

One of the best (Carl, WK3C) replied to your post, Mike. Carl has experienced
BPL first-hand.

73 de Jim, N2EY