"KD6MSI" wrote in message
...

I think simple economics will be the death of BPL. Cable Broadband, and
DSL are getting cheaper and cheaper, and for the first time DSL is
actually cheaper in some markets than Cable broadband. Broadband can now
be had for what a dialup line cost just a few years ago. The newest
contender, and the one I think is going to kill BPL in the long run, is
satellite internet. The price is a bit high right now, but no more so
than DSL was a short time ago. I predict that it will be coming down
fast, and satellite internet will be *the* provider of the future
because it can be had as a package with digital satellite television,
and provides service to *anywhere* in north America with a clear view of
the southern sky. No miles to source limits, no load balancing, no
landlines, no muss, no fuss. I just don't believe BPL can catch up with
the economics of its competitors who have been at it alot longer.

As the population ages and moves into condos, satellite access is going to
have less appeal. Wireless, OTOH, could be used anywhere. The countryside is
already littered with cellphone towers.

There's another problem with DSL in particular: Aged, inadequate telephone
delivery conductors. This may not be a problem in 6-land, but it is in other
parts of the country. The phone companies have been getting by with
antiquated wiring for decades. Or you have the 'distance from switching
center' problem. WRT keeping up with the times, the cable companies have
done a better job, because they had to, to compete with the satellites for
television service. Cable comes with its own set of problems, though. IMO,
instead of inflicting another system on consumers, FCC would have better
served its role by working to improve what we already have. I would say that
BPL is sort of like reverse psychology: Use BPL to threaten DSL and cable
providers, so they improve their service; but I don't think Powell is that
smart.

73,

"PM"