Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , Roger
writes On 15 Oct 2004 22:57:29 GMT, (Fractenna) wrote: BPL is simply a poor technical solution, and is an interim communications step that should be bypassed. Why wait? People have things to say and see right now. Ultimately, all telecom systems transition. BPL has the good fortune of having an infrastructure and a need right now; tomorrow; and for some time to come. Seize the day! Solve a pressing problem. BPL looks very promising. That is not exactly what the Technology News has to say http://www.technewsworld.com/story/37378.html They basically say it doesn't look promising as a business model and the infrastructure isn't in place to use it yet, except for a few test sites. It's inefficient, expensive to install, and is least likely to serve the sparsely settled rural areas for which it's being touted. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com 73, Chip N1IR It seems incongruous that the FCC should be supporting BPL. They should be renamed the FLOCC (Federal LACK OF Communication Commission). Ian. -- |