Actually calling it an extant infrastructure is a gross oversimplification.

I beg to differ. I used the word properly.

They have to add signal boosters every couple of miles plus bypasses to
every transformer. Where the lines are in the average condition for this
country (which equates to poor condition), they will have to upgrade the
lines themselves. Where there is noise on the lines, say due to industry
(welders for example really put a lot of noise across them), they'll have to
track it down and filter it out. Dry areas have a lot of static and they
may have to shield the lines for reliable data transfer. The plains states
have a lot of thunderstorms and once again they may have to shield the lines
to have reliable performance.


Minor logistical issues; part of doing business.

There's a lot of expense in implementing this and a lot of time consuming
work.

Incremental.

The rural areas will never get it as there simply aren't enough
customers per mile to break even. Besides by the time they get the rural
areas covered, if they ever do, these people will have gone to satellite or
WI-FI and there won't be a market.


Speculation; asserted but not shown.

BPL will be one of many options many folks will have, and in many cases it
will
be the only and/or best one. That is why it will be successful in the
United
States.


Not true. Small towns and larger already have dial up and many have DSL and
cable access. Some already have WI-FI and satellite. People outside of the
towns will NOT be served regardless of the marketing hype due to cost.
Customers per mile won't justify it.

Obviously there will be market locations where the business case is compelling;
others where it will be not. Are you saying that they haven't done the business
case? I don't see evidence that your assertions come from such analyses.

The important point is that ham radio is not a factor in the business case, in
my opinion. Ham radio: 'we did you already, didn't we?' Why should we belabor a
point already dealt with, and deal with in great sensitivity and fairness?.


Other options are bound to capture relevant market share as well. It's a
big
country and a huge market, easily amenable to several tech paths Everyone
wins! What a deal!


For BPL to capture and KEEP market share, it's going to have to be as cheap
as dial up and as fast and reliable as cable or DSL. Otherwise it may get
implemented in spots but is doomed to basically wither and die on the vine.


Yes, I agree. Except the 'doomed' case sounds like 20 sigma, to me.

That is why BPL is supported by both Presidential candidates. One of the
few
points both these gentlemen agree on.:-)


No they support it because of the marketing hype that has been done and the
fact that neither is really conversant with the technology.

That is SO wrong. Senator Kerry--I know as a fact--is VERY cognizant in telecom
matters, which include BPL. His staff is superb. I cannot speak from experience
regarding President Bush, although I like what I hear.

After all they
few it as having an infrastructure in place, which is in fact not true.

Sure it is. Infrastructure is not the same as implementation.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


73,
Chip N1IR