[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] [CQ-Contest] Bad news for BPL = Good news for us

To: <>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] [CQ-Contest] Bad news for BPL = Good news for us
From: "Roger (K8RI)" <>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:43:17 -0400
List-post: <>
This is straying toward being OT, but OTOH it does directly affect our 
ability to hear and operate.

On thing to remember about BPL and repeaters. Repeaters are only needed 
where they are going to be providing signals to users. BPL is not a stand 
alone system.  It requires a *conventional* system be it cable, fiber, or 
wireless that is essentially in parallel with the MV power lines. Even in 
high density areas periodic refeeds are necessary. I believe the last figure 
I saw was on the order of one refeed every three or four repeaters. IOW they 
need to refeed about once a mile. That may be better now and it certainly 
would be in low noise, sparsely settled areas. So for BPL to work they have 
to install a conventional system as well. In the end for the consumer the 
only advantage I see is the ability to plug into most any outlet for 
connectivity. BPL costs far more due to the requirement of two systems, but 
that cost is eaten by the government (IE subsidies). A $50 million 
government loan was just given to several states (Michigan is one) to serve 
105,000 customers. they are looking at areas already served by conventional 
means, or areas where the conventional systems are available if not in use. 
Remember too, according to news reports, there are hundreds of thousands of 
miles of "dark fiber" out there.

My point though is when you get down to one or two customers per mile they 
are going to be using a refeed for almost every customer. In that case it 
doesn't make sense to install the equipment to couple the conventional 
system to the power line and then feed the customer when they could have 
gone direct from the feeding system to the customer for far less cost. IOW 
it would cost less to just provide the conventional system that would 
provide better performance and reliability. Even remote meter reading could 
be done the same way for far less cost. Of course as has already been 
mentioned, there already is a low frequency system  that works quite well 
for remote meter reading.


Roger (K8RI)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Milt, N5IA" <>
To: "Jim Lux" <>; "superberthaguy" 
Cc: "Dick Frey - K4XU" <>; <>; "cq 
contest" <CQ-Contest@CONTESTING.COM>
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] [CQ-Contest] Bad news for BPL = Good news for us

> On the contrary Jim.
> I have been directly involved with telecommunications AND electric power
> distribution in a very rural area for nearly 40 years.
> I have successfully deployed wireless Internet delivery across a 5,000
> square mile area with just over 50 Access Points serving nearly 2,000
> subscribers.
> It would take 10 times the investment to do the same via BPL on our power
> lines, and then still not deliver to every potential subscriber because of
> the remoteness of some locations.  With electric kWh meter density at near 
> 5
> per mile (that includes water wells, barns, and other locations which are
> not permanent human dwellings) there would be more BPL repeaters than
> subscribers.
> And my electric meters per mile ratio is somewhat higher than many, many
> other RURAL areas of the country which have densisties of TWO to THREE kWh
> IMHO, wireless IS the solution for most rural areas that I am acquainted
> with.
> Milt, N5IA
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jim Lux" <>
>> I've always thought that BPL is more a clever way to keep a few hundred
>> folks employed than any serious attempt to bring broadband to the rural
>> masses.
>> Jim, W6RMK
> _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list


TowerTalk mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>