Texas to Get Broadband (BPL):
from
CNet.com
on
December 20, 2005
Website:
http://news.com.com/Texas+to+get+broadband+over+its+power+lines/2100-1014_3-5995234.html?part=rss&ta
View comments about this article!
Two Texas companies have announced a plan to offer high-speed Internet service over the power grid.
The plan was announced on Monday by Current Communications Group, a service provider that specializes in broadband service over power lines (BPL), and TXU Electric Delivery, the largest electric company in Texas.
The companies estimate that roughly 2 million homes and businesses in northern Texas will be able to subscribe to the new service when the network is complete. Current Communications--which has built a similar network over Cincinnati's power lines with local utility company Cinergy--will design, build and operate the new broadband network. Deployments will begin in 2006, the companies said.
The purpose of the new network is twofold. First, it will allow TXU to monitor the health of its power network. If an outage occurs, the network, which is based on Internet Protocol, can send alerts immediately. Eventually, the utility could even use the network to remotely read meters and switch power on or off.
Secondly, BPL will enable TXU to develop a new revenue stream. The broadband network will be laid on top of the existing power infrastructure, and TXU will then lease this infrastructure to broadband providers such as Current.
"This agreement is a milestone for Current as well as for BPL and illustrates the economic advantages of driving multiple applications across a single large-scale network deployment," William Berkman, chairman and co-founder of Current, said in a statement.
Service speeds and pricing details haven't been released, but Current said the network will have enough capacity to offer customers a "triple play" package, which would include telephony, TV service and high-speed Internet access. Users will be able to access the high-speed broadband network by plugging a device into an electrical outlet in the wall.
BPL is not a new technology. People have been experimenting with building communication networks over power lines since the 1950s. But it hasn't caught on due to its low speed, low functionality and high development cost.
Adoption has also been slowed by technical hurdles. For example, the technology has interfered with local emergency radios and Ham radios. But experts say these issues have been worked out and that interference is no longer a problem.
As a result, BPL is finally beginning to catch on. More than 50 utilities across the country are looking into it. Duke Power and Progress Energy in North Carolina, as well as Con Edison in New York, are testing the technology with Internet service provider EarthLink. Current is already offering service to about 50,000 customers in Ohio using power lines from Cinergy. And Chantilly, Va.-based broadband service provider Communication Technologies is offering BPL service in Manassas, Va.
The technology has also caught the eye of large investors. Earlier this year, search giant Google, media conglomerate Hearst and bankers at Goldman Sachs invested in Current.
The emergence of BPL as a viable alternative to DSL and cable modem service comes at a time when the nation's cable operators and phone companies are spending billions of dollars to upgrade their networks. The battle for control of the broadband pipe into the home has intensified: telephone companies are moving into the TV business, and cable operators are offering voice service.
Although many people have access to two broadband options, some consumers have said they still want more choices. BPL could provide that third alternative. The sheer ubiquity of power lines makes it a promising option. But the equipment and semiconductors needed to build these networks are still expensive, which could prevent large-scale deployments. Still, some experts hope that BPL will eventually become a standard alternative to DSL or cable Internet service for consumers and businesses.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Texas to Get Broadband (BPL):
|
|
|
by W1RFI on December 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To put this in perspective, the BPL vendor, Current Technlogies, uses a BPL technology that is somewhat protective of Amateur Radio, although other spectrum, such as international shortwave broadcast and 30-50 MHz is still at risk.
They use 30-50 MHz on the medium-voltage primary lines (overhead or underground). If the spectrum were chosen carefully, in most areas, it could be possible to avoid local 30-50 MHz use. (A big if...) There is sufficient guard bands around their use of that spectrum that 10 m and 6 m are not affected.
In the premises, they use HomePlug modems. These operate from 4-21 MHz, with the ham bands notched. See
http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/HomePlug/HomePlug_ARRL.pdf
http://www.HomePlug.org
for information on HomePlug.
The fact that HF is used by devices that radiate only from premise wiring and the relatively short 240-volt drops between transformers and premises (in the US architecture), the emissions potential is more localized than the emissions from overhead wires.
The HomePlug modems are also dead quiet except when in actual use.
This combination generally protects mobile amateur operation.
As ARRL noted in its petition for further rulemaking in the BPL matter, this combination minimizes the interference potential to Amateur Radio and if the rules will continue to permit BPL, they should be changed to reflect what can clearly be accomplished.
It is likely that in RF quiet areas, hams that do "weak signal" work on HF would see some degradation of their noise floor from a nearby HomePlug modem. Motorola also uses HomePlug modems, but they solved that problem with additional filters. I have been in contact with Current Technologies engineers about this topic in general. The general impression I get is that they are willing to talk about additional solutions when needed, but will wait for interference reports before they do.
What is lacking from these HomePlug systems is protection for shortwave broadcast and other spectrum. However, Current Technologies has deployed past 50,000 homes in Cincinnati and there have not been major interference problems (estimates are that they have a few thousand customers). I have personally heard interference to shortwave broadcast, but to my knowledge, there have been no formal complaints, even by hams there, some of whom presumably have some interest in shortwave broadcasting. Unfortunately, the entities that have real standing to complain about that -- the shortwave broadcasters and listeners -- have not raised this issue in any appreciable way in the US.
A summary of Current Technologies' equipment is included in the editorial Dave Sumner wrote:
"Better BPL?" - August, 2005 "It Seems to Us"
http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2005/08/01/1/
The local hams in Texas are going to look at this system closely, as most hams who have BPL show up in their neighborhoods do, but their responses should be measured and should include the characteristics of the system involved. ARRL is working with the local amaateur leadership in the Dallas area to help them respond and investigate the deployment as it occurs.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
|   |
|
Texas to Get Broadband (BPL):
|
|
|
by N0NB on December 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Thanks, Ed, for the additional information. At least some of the equipment manufacturers have listened to the ARRL and the ham radio community and it's good that the electric utilities are choosing these suppliers. It's interesting that locally we have a very progressive independent telephone company that has already installed fiber to each of their subscriber's homes and plans to offer a cable TV service in addition to DSL and telephone services. In the local areas served by SBC they provide wireless DSL (I'm a subscriber) so most of SBC's rural customer base can enjoy internet speeds beyond 26.4 kbps. As a result, the local electric cooperative probably will not be able to get into Internet access by offering BPL as I doubt they could be more competitive. 73, de Nate >>
|
|   |
|
Texas to Get Broadband (BPL):
|
|
|
by AD5KL on December 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This proves when there is a choice between public safety or BIG money, big money wins every time.
Hope this won't cause much interference, but I have more doubt than hope. We'll see.
|
|   |
|
Texas to Get Broadband (BPL):
|
|
|
by N0XMZ on December 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks for the insight, Ed. I live in this area and just yesterday I began to consider that my HF operating days were close to being over after reading about the coming deployment in the Dallas Morning News. There are a lot of hams in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area (incl. Mr. Haynie of the ARRL) to keep an eye on this BPL cancer to make sure it stays "in remission".
|
|   |
|
RE: Texas to Get Broadband (BPL):
|
|
|
by WI7B on December 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Texas Already Has Clearwire.com - WiMAX. Why does it want BPL? Available in Wichita Falls, Abilene, Waco, Midland/Odessa, and Killeen/Temple. Coming to a city or rural area near you.
Support the true friend to Amateur Radio: licensed, wireless internet. Guranteed interference-free to you and your ham rigs.
Maybe I should write advertising copy during my lunchbreak. ;-)
73,
---* Ken
|
|   |
|
RE: Texas to Get Broadband (BPL):
|
|
|
by W1RFI on December 20, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To the electric utilities, this isn't about access BPL. They want BPL for such purposes as meter reading, outage detection, voltage monitoring and video monitoring of remote facilities, for example.
Some have noted that these don't all require broadband. That certainly isn't true for video monitoring. And in the aggregate, they probably do require some broadband capabilities.
Access BPL is just something that goes along for the ride, allowing the utility to either charge its access customers to offset some of the costs of putting in BPL for their own use, or allowing the utility to lease the lines to an ISP.
They could, of course, accomplish this over existing cable or DSL lines, but that would require them to spend money, and it could put them at the mercy of those companies when it came time to renegotiate contracts.
So even though there is competition, BPL can look pretty good to these companies for utility use.
Of course, most of those applications are not turnkey at this time.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
|   |
|
RE: Texas to Get Broadband (BPL):
|
|
|
by K9FV on December 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It sure sounds like Ed Hare and the ARRL has done a very decent job on the BPL problem. I really like the "idea" of BPL - IF it can be done without RF problems. It does seem like with the work that Ed Hare & the ARRL has done allows the Utility companies to find a way to use BPL without interferring with ham bands.
Thanks Ed,
73 de Ken H>
P.S. - this is NOT a "blanket" endorsement of the ARRL.
|
|   |
|
Texas to Get Broadband (BPL):
|
|
|
by N5YPJ on December 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
We live in a town where the only real high speed access is cable internet and that isn't available in our neighborhood, no dsl, etc in a town of almost 40,000. Bring on the BPL, we can learn to live with it if it let's us get out of the dark ages.
|
|   |
|
RE: Texas to Get Broadband (BPL):
|
|
|
by N7UQA on December 23, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N5YPJ wrote:
We live in a town where the only real high speed access is cable internet and that isn't available in our neighborhood, no dsl, etc in a town of almost 40,000. Bring on the BPL, we can learn to live with it if it let's us get out of the dark ages.
Richard, I can understand your frustration, I live in an area that has no DSL or cable. My only option is dial up or satellite Internet service. I currently use my Verizon cell phone and have three times the speed of dial up. It works good enough till Clearwire or Verizons EVDO service becomes available in my area. BPL is the most spectrum polluting, duct tape and bailing wire delivery method imaginable. If you experienced BPL interference first hand I doubt you would so eager to embrace it. Below is a post from slashdot of a typical computer user who was on a BPL trial.
Craig - N7UQA
I live in eastern PA (Lehigh Valley Area) and was on the local trial of BPL.
Our power company, PPL, built up a network about a year ago that promised BPL at 1.5mbps symmetric for everyone. I actually got in on the first trials of the service... and it simply sucked. Firstly and foremostly, the speeds NEVER got ANYWHERE near 1.5mbps... in either direction... at any time of day. About half of the system was based on 802.11x wireless, which is what got the signal from the medium voltage lines (the ones that feed the transformers that get the power down to 110v) to the homes. This was done because otherwise, they would need a device to jump over every transformer, since the signal for BPL doesn't survive otherwise. So, as I was wardriving, I noticed a VERY big bunch of PPLBroadbandxxxxxx APs in the area, which I suspect caused part of the problem: too much signal, not enough bandwidth.
Other things I noticed (but were logical design decisions made by the system builders, not inherent limitations in the technology) include:
- Throttling of ICMP, which totally screwed with any traceroute or ping measurement when troubleshooting
- Use of unroutable IP space for end customers
- Authentication of end users not by the BPL modem's MAC (like cable modems work), but by the MAC of the first device behind it... a real headache for those of use switching out devices on a regular basis
All in all, BPL is one of those things that sounds good on paper, but is absolutely abysmal in practice. If I were to put my money on a future last-mile broadband technology, it would have to be DSL (newer DSL variations allow much greater distances from CO to demarc) or long-range wireless (WiMAX, low orbit satellite, 4G cellular, etc).
Just for the record, about a month ago, PPL gave up, took down all of their equipment and went home. I suspect it's being used down in Texas about now ;-).
|
|   |
|
RE: Texas to Get Broadband (BPL):
|
|
|
by W1RFI on December 23, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> P.S. - this is NOT a "blanket" endorsement of the ARRL.
Nor do I give a blanket endorsement of ARRL, either, Ken. I have my beefs, too, and Tom Frenaye hears about most of them. Some I let slide. Heck, I have seen ARRL Board motions pass 8:7, so in that case, seven of the League's Board of Directors disagreed with the outcome.
Even in the area of BPL, there is more that could be done. But all in all, I think that for the resources available, the League is having a positive impact.
In the BPL database (http://www.bpldatabase.org) there are a number of entries where the BPL operator added a note that they have notched (digitally filtered) all the ham bands. In some cases, that notching is not enough, but we are seeing a growing understanding that the way to avoid interference is to not use the spectrum for which local use is likely. "Legal" BPL is S9+, and when a BPL system operates at that level across several ham bands, interference will happen.
I will keep at it, but only with the help of a lot of hams across the country. I won't name them, because I couldn't name them all, but these guys locally who do the things locally that are needed to document and report the status of BPL systems nationwide are truly my heroes. They do what they can for Amateur Radio, and though I may be the guy who gets the poems, they are also worthy of the thanks of hams everywhere. It truly does show the real strength of Amateur Radio and the best role for ARRL.
At any rate, to all, let me wish everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Happy Kwanza and Happy New Year.
73,
Ed, W1RFI
|
|   |
|
RE: Texas to Get Broadband (BPL):
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on January 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ARRL told us that BPL was a "flawed" technology that "won't work". But there sure seems to be a lot of BPL systems springing up around the country. How come all those people using BPL don't know its a "flawed" technology that "won't work"?
I'm so glad I pay attention to what ARRL says.
|
|   |
|
RE: Texas to Get Broadband (BPL):
|
|
|
by N7UQA on January 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE says
ARRL told us that BPL was a "flawed" technology that "won't work". But there sure seems to be a lot of BPL systems springing up around the country. How come all those people using BPL don't know its a "flawed" technology that "won't work"?
I'm so glad I pay attention to what ARRL says.
Hmm, that's funny, I suppose you didn't read the the post of an actual PPL BPL user. He didn't seem to be very happy with it, I would say that it "didn't work" and was a "flawed technology". Not to mention that the originator of all this (William Stewart) has since then been indicted on wire fraud and money laundering charges. His original "system", which was patented, has yet to be demonstrated to actually work. This is the one that promised billion + gigabits of throughput over ordinary power wires, the intended end user was to receive 2Gb/s of bandwidth.
Craig - N7UQA
|
|   |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Alabama Club Commended for Katrina Response Role:
Katrina Gives Strong Purpose:
Have You Filed Your Comment Against BPL/PLC Yet? -- Alternate ECFS Link:
Invite Your Congressman or Congresswoman to Field Day!
ARRL Tells FCC to 'Reconsider, Rescind and Restudy' BPL Order:
Other News Articles
Amateur Radio Group Puts Focus On Emergency Communication:
Lester, Daniel C. 'Danny' KE9SE, (SK):
World War II-Era Navigation System Shut Down:
CU Space Project to Study How a Violent Sun Can Affect Earth:
ARNewsline #1695 -- February 5 2010:
|