BPL is just a bad idea, it does not scale well at all. There are better technologies out there DSL, Cable Modems and non 802.11 wireless standards. Not only does BPL interfere (RFI) with VHF, AM,FM and public safety radio systems (Think State Police that use HF radio systems). It kills portions of the frequency spectrum that Amateur Radio uses to setup communication networks when phone and cell phones don't work. If there was a way for electric companies to re-run there power lines with shielding. Only then I think BPL would be an option. I don't think EWEB or PGE or any other power company is going to to do that. I think in the long run EWEB would make more money employing people to read meters. Than not getting billing data because some one DOSed there server that received the billing data. Or some one sending EWEB a false meter reading which saved them money.
This is only my 0.02 cents Mike Miller On 1/23/06, Chris LeBlanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BPL is signal over power lines, with the same kind of limitations of > cable modems, but without the existing infrastructure to segment out the > signal groups. So think of your cable company, taking all of those > signal lines, and putting them all on one hub? For BPL to work, the > signalling infrastructure would have to be put at the sub-stations, and > even then the signal groups would be far larger than cable. This > translates to one thing, high speed signal, way too many people on it, > think dial-up by the time you get down to it (or ClearW re out in the > fringes). > > Add to that radio signals can interfere with it, and be interferred by > it, and you have all sorts of problems. > > Probably a bigger opponent of BPL is the NAB (National Association of > Broadcasters). Since BPL directly interferes with AM radio, and, by > harmonics, the entire lower VHF (channels 2-6) and FM radio, not to > mention licensed frequencies, I don't see this being a major option any > time soon. When Michel Powell was in charge of the FCC, he was a big > proponent of BPL, mostly because he hated broadcasters and really wanted > to screw them over, then people who get elected by the ads that air on > those broadcasters started putting pressure against it. Notice that BPL > hasn't been mentioned around the FCC for about a year and a half now. > > Just my couple of cents worth. > > Chris > > > > EWEB's interest was far more practical .. If your power meter simply > > phoned home & over the same power lines - there would be no need for > > meter readers, and you could find out where you sat billwise every 10 > > min. if you wanted to. Customer internet BPL was a secondary > > thought. Some of the big customers already do automatic meter reading > > .. albeit over regular ethernet. The meter technology is pretty young > > still security wise as well .. nothing encrypted .. pretty easy to DOS > > if you find one.. etc..etc.. > > > > Since the feasability test, to my knowledge there's no plan to move to > > BPL anytime soon.. > > > > > > > > Jeff Newton wrote: > > > >> Speaking of BPL, there's been alot of opposition with it within the > >> amatuer radio community, because if it causing intereference among > >> the radio spectrum that amatuers use. Supposedly, they say. The ARRL > >> (Amatuer Radio Relay League) is all over it I hear. But to me, its > >> costly and a bad idea! > >> > > _______________________________________________ > EUGLUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug > _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
