[funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

{re: BPL will bring competition...}

I am totally baffled by all the hype over BPL.

What is true is the utilities would wet their pants over having
same. Not for offering Internet access, but so they could read
every electric meter in realtime, and do load-shedding as well.

What they SEEM to be doing is trying to convince the Vulture
Capitalists that BPL makes sense for 'Net access, and "By the way,
as long as you're paying, we'd like to use it ourselves.."

But using BPL for 'Net access is well, insane.

a) It not only makes RF interference out the yingyang; it is also
highly susceptible to other RF emitters confusing it. So it's
"Ahh Grasshopper" ish in constantly jumping around retraining
its spectrum useage, rather like a modem on a bad line.

Ergo, unpredictable latency/throughput. That's OK for Jill
Winecooler's email & baby picture sharing, and totally unacceptable
for VOIP, XM & other music streaming, TV episode replays,
YouTube, etc.

b) It makes the most sense in dense neighberhoods where lots of
folks share a power trasnformer. [Each one needs a $hunt installed
to pass the data around the transformer.] I.e: Europe, and maybe
US dense surburbia/apt houses, and such. But that's exactly where
DSL & cable are already available...

c) Note that the equipment installers in b) are not your average
Cable Guy. They must be $killed HV power linemen in bucket
trucks etc.

d) It won't reach DSL/cable fiber speeds Ever. So as demand grows...

2

{re: BPL will bring competition...}

I am totally baffled by all the hype over BPL.

What is true is the utilities would wet their pants over having
same. Not for offering Internet access, but so they could read
every electric meter in realtime, and do load-shedding as well.

What they SEEM to be doing is trying to convince the Vulture
Capitalists that BPL makes sense for 'Net access, and "By the way,
as long as you're paying, we'd like to use it ourselves.."

But using BPL for 'Net access is well, insane.

a) It not only makes RF interference out the yingyang; it is also
highly susceptible to other RF emitters confusing it. So it's
"Ahh Grasshopper" ish in constantly jumping around retraining
its spectrum useage, rather like a modem on a bad line.

Ergo, unpredictable latency/throughput. That's OK for Jill
Winecooler's email & baby picture sharing, and totally unacceptable
for VOIP, XM & other music streaming, TV episode replays,
YouTube, etc.

b) It makes the most sense in dense neighberhoods where lots of
folks share a power trasnformer. [Each one needs a $hunt installed
to pass the data around the transformer.] I.e: Europe, and maybe
US dense surburbia/apt houses, and such. But that's exactly where
DSL & cable are already available...

c) Note that the equipment installers in b) are not your average
Cable Guy. They must be $killed HV power linemen in bucket
trucks etc.

d) It won't reach DSL/cable fiber speeds Ever. So as demand grows...

I would agree. The last time I looked at the economics of this in detail, it
would have been cheaper to have just strung fiber along the electric lines, at least for above ground power distribution.

The system I looked at had fiber along the high voltage lines anyway, to get enough bandwidth to the neighborhood - i.e., fiber to the neighborhood, plus equipment there to put the data onto the copper. After that, each transformer requires a shunt. Therefore, each transformer requires a truck roll plus equipment to get service. And, every time a transformer blows, a new truck roll plus equipment. And, many line splices were good enough for power but not good enough for data, so these had to be found and replaced. All of this required new techs, or extensive training, as the existing techs weren't trained for it. All of this was for fairly short run to the house, and fairly crappy bandwidth. It seemed much more sensible to me to just run fiber along the wires to the house (i.e., to treat the power lines as an easement, not a data pipe), but maybe that's just me.

Regards
Marshall

3

Broadband-over-powerlines, like its cousin ethernet-over-domestic
wiring, is one of those things that gets discovered every three years,
hyped, oohed and aahed over, then disappears. Reason: it's a solution
looking for a problem, for the reasons given above. Why not, rather
than try to kludge data over high voltage, just borrow the pylons or
the cable dig and use proper data networking technology? If the
electricity grid is suitable for good BPL, there's probably a
reasonable copperline phone network, and anyway the distances are
short enough that laying cat5 isn't out of the question.

And if you're in the wilds enough that you can't do DSL, then you
probably can't do BPL.

Something amusing in the fact that power-over-ethernet is a lot more
useful than ethernet-over-power!

4

The system I looked at had fiber along the high voltage lines anyway,
to get enough bandwidth to the neighborhood - i.e., fiber to the
neighborhood, plus equipment there to put the data onto the copper.
After that, each transformer requires a shunt. Therefore, each
transformer requires a truck roll plus equipment to get service. ...

My understanding is that in North America, the average number of
customers per transformer is about 4, while in Europe it's closer to
200, due both to the higher voltage and the different housing
patterns.

At 200 potential customers per transformer, it sorta makes sense, give
or take the performance and RF issues. At four per transformer it's
absurd.

As someone else suggested, we might consider the fabulous success of
HomePlug, which everyone uses to distribute Ethernet over their home
power wiring. Oh, they don't? I wonder why not.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.