I suppose this news about the FCC rejecting requests to limit BPL is
available other places, but here's a link to one report:

http://www.powerpulse.net/news/story...15762&source=1

Sigh.
Tom

K7ITM wrote:
I suppose this news about the FCC rejecting requests to limit BPL is
available other places, but here's a link to one report:

http://www.powerpulse.net/news/story...15762&source=1

Sigh.
Tom



If BPL is so viable why is it only being deployed in metropolitan areas
where Cable and DSL is available. It was sold to the FCC as a cheep way
to provide high speed access to people outside Cable and DSL service
areas. Right now is is in direct competition with those modes and the
country bumpkins are left out again. This situation is similar to when
the major power companies refused to extend their lines out into the
country to farmers. Their excuse was that it would cost to much for each
customer to make money. It took the Rural Electrification Act to create
the REMC power companies. Now the big power companies what to take over
the REMC's.

Dave N

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:57:39 -0500, "David G. Nagel"
wrote:

K7ITM wrote:
I suppose this news about the FCC rejecting requests to limit BPL is
available other places, but here's a link to one report:

http://www.powerpulse.net/news/story...15762&source=1

Sigh.
Tom



If BPL is so viable why is it only being deployed in metropolitan areas
where Cable and DSL is available. It was sold to the FCC as a cheep way
to provide high speed access to people outside Cable and DSL service
areas. Right now is is in direct competition with those modes and the
country bumpkins are left out again. This situation is similar to when
the major power companies refused to extend their lines out into the
country to farmers. Their excuse was that it would cost to much for each
customer to make money. It took the Rural Electrification Act to create
the REMC power companies. Now the big power companies what to take over
the REMC's.

Dave N

As I understand, repeaters costing many thousands of dollars are
needed every mile or two along the electricity line to shoot the BPL
signal on along. There's not enough population density out in rural
areas to justify the cost.

bob
k5qwg

Bob Miller wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:57:39 -0500, "David G. Nagel"
wrote:


K7ITM wrote:

I suppose this news about the FCC rejecting requests to limit BPL is
available other places, but here's a link to one report:

http://www.powerpulse.net/news/story...15762&source=1

Sigh.
Tom



If BPL is so viable why is it only being deployed in metropolitan areas
where Cable and DSL is available. It was sold to the FCC as a cheep way
to provide high speed access to people outside Cable and DSL service
areas. Right now is is in direct competition with those modes and the
country bumpkins are left out again. This situation is similar to when
the major power companies refused to extend their lines out into the
country to farmers. Their excuse was that it would cost to much for each
customer to make money. It took the Rural Electrification Act to create
the REMC power companies. Now the big power companies what to take over
the REMC's.

Dave N


As I understand, repeaters costing many thousands of dollars are
needed every mile or two along the electricity line to shoot the BPL
signal on along. There's not enough population density out in rural
areas to justify the cost.

bob
k5qwg


Bob;

That wasn't mentioned when BPL was first proposed.

Dave

BTW: I'm in the choir....

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:27:27 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:


As I understand, repeaters costing many thousands of dollars are
needed every mile or two along the electricity line to shoot the BPL
signal on along. There's not enough population density out in rural
areas to justify the cost.

Close...

Whilst anything is possible, the chipsets implemented and being
commonly deployed need a repeater at much much smaller intervals, eg
the DS2 chipset needs repeaters typically after about 80 metres
(~260').

The promotion of this as a total acccess solution to rural subscribers
is misleading and dishonest, the potentially profitable market is in
residential areas and triple-play more than very low density rural
rollout.



Owen
--

Yes, it can't make money without large customer base.

It is interesting, the head of the FCC has ZERO technical experience
within the RF arena, however, he holds several degrees from NC Universitites,

and is a lawyer.

Just like the FCC comm. before him, Powell and Abernathy think BPL is
the Nirvana for internet.

Would be cheaper for the power companies to run fiber cable on or under the
existing poles that carry the big power to the dist. stations.

Then they can deply wifi or other service. Or even lease the cable to other
providers.

Once the power co. can put the bpl into their rate base they can charge
customers
for the hardware even if they don't use bpl.

With luck, it will just be too expensive to even consider.

Jim Higgins wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:35:02 GMT, carl wrote:


Yes, it can't make money without large customer base.

It is interesting, the head of the FCC has ZERO technical experience
within the RF arena, however, he holds several degrees from NC Universitites,

and is a lawyer.

Just like the FCC comm. before him, Powell and Abernathy think BPL is
the Nirvana for internet.

Would be cheaper for the power companies to run fiber cable on or under the
existing poles that carry the big power to the dist. stations.

Then they can deply wifi or other service. Or even lease the cable to other
providers.

Once the power co. can put the bpl into their rate base they can charge
customers
for the hardware even if they don't use bpl.


And this is how BRL needs to be fought. Petition your Public Service
commission to prevent startup and operating costs of BPL from being
financed in any way by income from the sale or distribution of
electricity. That's a logical request and it's BPL's death knell.




Unfortunately many Public Utility Commissions have decided to opt out
of the argument by declaring that the problem is a Federal one. The
Indiana Utility Regulatory commission is one such.

Dave N

"David G. Nagel" wrote in message
...
Jim Higgins wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:35:02 GMT, carl wrote:


Yes, it can't make money without large customer base.

It is interesting, the head of the FCC has ZERO technical experience
within the RF arena, however, he holds several degrees from NC
Universitites,

and is a lawyer.

Just like the FCC comm. before him, Powell and Abernathy think BPL is
the Nirvana for internet.

Would be cheaper for the power companies to run fiber cable on or under
the
existing poles that carry the big power to the dist. stations.

Then they can deply wifi or other service. Or even lease the cable to
other
providers.

Once the power co. can put the bpl into their rate base they can charge
customers
for the hardware even if they don't use bpl.


And this is how BRL needs to be fought. Petition your Public Service
commission to prevent startup and operating costs of BPL from being
financed in any way by income from the sale or distribution of
electricity. That's a logical request and it's BPL's death knell.




Unfortunately many Public Utility Commissions have decided to opt out of
the argument by declaring that the problem is a Federal one. The Indiana
Utility Regulatory commission is one such.

Dave N

Back in the early 80s I briefly worked for a cable company that rented space
on power poles. I think someone told me that it cost the cable company 2
dollars a year per pole.The power companies should have continued along this
line by istalling fiber on their poles and renting out he fiber and the
poles.