[BC] Update on BPL

[Rob Atkinson]

i went with SBC DSL last summer for $14.95/month.    i'm getting around 400K 
which is slow for dsl but a lot better than my $19.95 48K dial-up.   only 
problem so far is that when i run 1 kw on 160 and 75 meters i get into the 
dsl modem and tear it up.   i wonder what my station would have done to bpl. 
  hpe i don't have to find out.

the bpl fear seems to be less than a year or two ago but there is still some 
power co. trade assn. that is dueling with arrl via fcc filings.   my guess 
is that there are a few equpment mfrs. with too much invested in defective 
(from a RFI standpoint) designs and they don't want to simply walk away from 
what they've done so far.   possibly because of that, the bpl lobby shows no 
sign of folding its tent.   it's getting a bit silly because in addition to 
the motorola design, which arrl seems to think is okay, there's supposed to 
be this company in calif. that has produced a bpl system that operates above 
50 mhz and reportedly doesn't cause any problems to any of the licensed 
services.   the appearance to me is therefore that there are some business 
executives who can't let go of the idea that if all these hams would go 
away, we'd all get rich.

rob atkinson
st. charles IL
k5uj


From: "Paul Smith W4KNX" <paul at amtower.com>
Reply-To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
To: "Broadcast Radio Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Subject: Re: [BC] Update on BPL
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 21:39:12 -0500

Verizon here in my area is selling a DSL pkg with speeds up to 768kb for
14.95 per month.  They are going hard after dial up clients, and that speed
is still faster than BPL.
Isnt competition great?  Same thing happens when there are two cable TV
companies covering the same area.

Paul Smith
Sarasota, FL

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Cole" <rondcole at gmail.com>
To: "Broadcast Radio Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [BC] Update on BPL


Well now.
Finally a utility that acknowledges that the business model for BPL wont
work.

Its been my argument that BPL made no sense from a business perspective.
The cost to deploy the system is more than they can recover in a few years
of operation. That does not include the operating and maintenance cost.
They, BPL operators, can't compete for broadband customers in the city where
the going price is less than $50/month.
The model is even worse in rural area where customer density is low.

Ron Cole

On 11/26/05, Tom Bosscher <tom at bosscher.org> wrote:
 >
 > Peter Smerdon wrote:
 > >I recall a lot of angst some time ago on one of the lists about
 > Broadband over Power Lines (AM interference worries).
 > >Can somebody update me on whether this technology has made any inroads
 > in the US - and if so, what the impact has been on the AM and ham bands.
 >
 >     BPl by most manufactors does not co-exist with low band ham radio.
 > Motorola has a set of modems that neatly avoid all the amateur bands.
 > But, it looks like BPL is just too expensive to install and maintain.
 > Several utilities have tried and failed to get decent numbers of
 > subscribers. In one humorous case, the spokesman for the utility blamed
 > other broadband suppliers for having "prices that are too low"!
 >
 >     The ARRL has a whole lot of information. Look at
 > http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/
 >
 >     tom bosscher  K8TB

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/