LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #10   Report Post  
Old October 19th 04, 10:28 PM
Ian Jackson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
--



 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017