wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:50:47 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

|Yo Mamma wrote:
|
| ...
| BPL would work great, if the electric utility industry didn't seem to
| think maintenance was an option. As it stands now, most transmission
| and distribution providers are starving the maintenance departments to
| provide higher returns for the stockholders. Fine and dandy if you are
| waiting on a storm to come to you and provide write-offs to rebuild
| your infrastructure. Not so good if you want to provide good internet
| service. BPL is not a viable option on a large scale...with the state
| of the industry now.
|
|Your crystal ball seems broken ...
|
|http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/sho...leID=202400285
|
|JS
|
|------------------

Just because there is a standard does not mean it will be a major
player in the broadband business. ALl I gleen from this article is
that there are now two competing proposals for a standard.

Still BPL has major hurdles to overcome in that telcos like Verizon,
as well as cable providers, are converting their distribution lines
from copper to fiber. Fiber offers superior advantages over copper and
even power lines for transmission of broadband data.

The major advantage of BPL is that nearly 100% of homes in the US are
already penetrated with power lines. Cable is at about 75% level and
telcos are at about 95% level. That is what they are banking on that
the power lines are already to the house. No added infrastructure in
transmission lines has to be deployed. Only equiptment that is a
rather significant cost factor in rolling out BPL.

For me I would take fiber any day over BPL.

james

Wasn't initially proposed as a broadband option for rural homes, homes
without cable access? It seems like more than just that now.