[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [RFI] From Communications Daily re: BPL

To: <eedwards@tconl.com>, <rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: RE: [RFI] From Communications Daily re: BPL
From: "Dave Bernstein" <aa6yq@ambersoft.com>
Reply-to: aa6yq@ambersoft.com
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:24:30 -0400
List-post: <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
If an electric utility is the customer's ISP, there's no reduction in
the cost of whatever on-premises hardware is required to provide
real-time load optimization. Either the customer is persuaded to pay for
this hardware as a way to buy down electricity rates, or the utility
pays as a way to lower its peak load. If the utility is trying to get
into the ISP business with BPL, then free hardware for real-time load
optimation could certainly be used as a promotional vehicle, but its
just one of many ways to spend the promotional dollars required to sell
an undifferented product against dominant, entrenched competitors.

Lets hope it never gets this far, but could a utility offering BPL and
reduced electricity rates to users of its real-time load optimization
hardware refuse to offer that hardware (and reduced electricity rates)
to a power customer who insisted on sticking with cable or DSL rather
than switching to the utility's BPL-based internet service? I'm assuming
that cable/DSL would provide the necessary connectivity between the
subscriber's on-premises hardware and the utilities load monitoring
equipment. While there are ways to design the system so this isn't the
case, I see no technical justification for doing so; we're not talking
about optimizing the power cycle-by-cycle. Cable/DSL competitors would
scream "unfair competition", I suspect, and power utility regulators
would have a new problem. 

My point here is that while real-time load optimization is a good idea,
its hard to see how it generates differential advantage for BPL


        Dave, AA6YQ

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed -K0iL [mailto:eedwards@tconl.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 20:26
To: 'Dave Bernstein'; aa6yq@ambersoft.com
Cc: rfi@contesting.com
Subject: RE: [RFI] From Communications Daily re: BPL

Good question Dave.  I'm just repeating what I was told by our marketing

I'll run that question past those guys at work tomorrow!  (I'm just the 
dumb RF guy;-)

I suppose it has to do with who pays for the extra hardware to get the
they need pumped back.  If the package enticement is "come get internet 
access from us and lower your electric bills to boot", then they could 
probably charge the customer up front for the additional hardware needed

and get this data pumped back for free.  Otherwise they'd have to either

give away the hardware to get sign-ups (costing them $) or else charge
the hardware without the enticement of providing net access as part of
package--probably a tough sell.  Then again probably a tough sell even
the internet access package.

73, de ed -K0iL

-----Original Message-----
From:   Dave Bernstein
Given the large number of homes in this country with cable or DSL
connectivity, why aren't electric utilities already providing these serv

if they represent such a compelling opportunity? Cable+HomePlug or
DSL+HomePlug is indistinguishable from BPL for this purpose.

-----Original Message-----
From: rfi-bounces@contesting.com On Behalf Of EDWARDS, EDDIE J

You are all missing one important detail that could make BPL worthwhile 
if it doesn't get but a small share of the internet business; as I and
others have mentioned here on "RFI" before, the real reason for the
"data pipe" into the home is to provide value-added electric services
that can be added to the electric bill.

Once there's a data link to most homes, an electric utility can provide
Outage Detection (faster restoration), Outage Notification, Distribution
Automation, Automated Meter Reading (saves utility $), Energy Load
Management (for discount in rate), not to mention other more futuristic

RFI mailing list

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