In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:

So much for "no other method to serve the unserved areas but BPL".

Did anyone actually say that? It's highly inaccurate if they did.

I think the actual buzzphrase is "areas underserved by broadband" or some
such.

Not areas "undeserved" by broadband? ;^)

The image depicted is that there are large parts of the USA where broadband
access is either unavailable or very expensive. That's partly true - just
as
it's true that there are parts of the USA where cable TV is unavailable,
and
parts where underground natural gas service is unavailable. Etc.

The *implication* is that BPL will somehow fill in those gaps, but in ost
cases
that's not really the case - for the saem reasons competing technologies
don;t serve those areas yet.

I find it exceptionally misleading that people are being allowed to
believe that the signals are just going to travel by the power lines
from start to finish.

Of course it's misleading, but that's nothing new. Notice how the word "radio"
is avoided by people pushing "new wireless technologies".

Remember, Mike, they're all "professionals". They must know what's best, right?

I
think there is a vision of just sending the signals over the power lines
and boy howdy, an instant nationwide network, everywhere there is a
power line, "you have mail!"

Exactly.Just like there was a vision of next-generation satellite phones
that
would let all of us place phone calls from anywhere in the world via a
network
of low-eart-orbit satellites. That vision worked - but it wasn't
inexpensive!

In truth, a fiber has to be run to somewhere near the house that is
going to be served, so that means that rural areas will not be any
easier to serve than they are now.

And that's just the first problem. Once the fiber gets there, other
competing
technologies could use it, too. Including WiFi, as described by K2ASP.

Or just do the right thing, and run the silly signal the rest of the way
into the house via accepted and technically astute methods.

note: I'm making a bit of an assumption that this can be done.

Of course it can be done. But it costs $$ to do it, and the DSL and cablemodem
folks don't see an adequate ROI. Yet.

This is the downside of "deregulation". Once upon a time, "the phone company"
had to serve everyone pretty much equally, regardless of cost, in return for
having a monopoly. Not true any more.

Then there's the fact that the HF losses on power lines are so high that
BPL
systems need a repeater every few thousand feet. In rural areas that may
mean a
repeater for each customer, or more. Plus couplers and other hardware for
*each* customer.

I wonder how the costs compare between a BPL line system and a
cable system?

Depends on the particular situation. If there is currently no cable system, the
cost of running new cable and all that goes with it is quite high, compared to
putting in a few BPL taps and repeaters. OTOH, if the infrastructure is in
place it's a different story.

73 de Jim, N2EY

- Mike KB3EIA -