Yeah, but infrastructure is still required. In some cases, the power company
has to run fiber to the neighborhood. In others, they use the MV lines, but
have to put digital repeaters about every 2000 feet on the line. In others,
they use 802.11 to get to the house.
The premise that the infrastructure already exists is flawed.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06111
Tel: 860-594-0318
Internet: w1rfi@arrl.org
Web: http://www.arrl.org/tis
ARRL is the National Association for Amateur Radio. It is supported by
membership dues, individual contributions and the sale of publications and
advertising. For more information about ARRL, go to
http://www.arrl.org/news/features/inside-your-league.html. For more information
about membership, go to http://www.arrl.org/join.html. Your contribution can
also help support ARRL's ongoing efforts to protect Amateur spectrum. Go to
https://www.arrl.org/forms/development/donations/basic/ to learn more about the
ways you can support the ARRL programs and activities of most importance to
you. You can help ARRL protect Amateur Radio for you and future generations to
enjoy.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Tope [mailto:W4EF@dellroy.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 11:50 AM
> To: George K. Watson; RFI@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RFI] alternative to PLC
>
>
> Agreed, the payback time on the investment of miles of fiber
> optic cable
> would be very long given the relatively low income stream
> that the service
> will generate. Before high-speed internet came along, the cable TV
> industry had a very high debt load and couldn't afford to
> upgrade there
> systems from coax to fiber. With the additional revenue, I
> think that has
> changed somewhat, but it is still a very expensive proposition. This
> illustrates one of the possible negatives of the the
> additional competition
> which may come from PLC. If a third player is thrown into the
> mix, that will
> most likely mean even lower prices for high speed service (a
> good thing).
> Unfortunately, it may mean less money will be available in
> the long term
> for one of the players to bring fiber-to-the-home. Of course one could
> argue that the inherent bandwidth limitations of PLC could be the
> carrot that incentivises one of their competitors to bring
> fiber-to-the-home
> as this would allow for a premium level of service (higher
> bandwidth) that
> PLC could not deliver. Its not clear to me however that
> people would be
> willing to pay for this extra bandwidth if they already have DSL like
> performance. Its hard to say how all this will shake out.
>
> BTW, I am curious why nobody has tried exploiting the MMDS band
> (2.5 to 2.7 GHz) for broadband service. Fixed costs are probably
> on par with PLC, but bandwidth would be higher. Unlike LMDS (28 GHz)
> the frequency is still low enough that there are no rain fade effects.
>
> 73 de Mike,
> W4EF..........................................................
> .............
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George K. Watson" <watson@sierracmp.com>
> To: <RFI@contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 6:04 AM
> Subject: RE: [RFI] alternative to PLC
>
>
> > >> Why on earth do power companies want to send data
> signals over power...
> >
> > Simple business. The difference between leverageing their
> existing wire
> > infrastructure and having to string thousands of miles of
> fiber would be
> > tremendous.
> >
> > George K. Watson
> > K0IW
> > Managing Director,
> > Magnolia Road Internet Cooperative
> > www.magnoliaroad.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RFI mailing list
> > RFI@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>
|