BPL Another Approach
Richard Detweiler (K5SF)
on
May 15, 2004
View comments about this article!
Another approach to the BPL issue may be through the concept of the guaranteed profit for infrastructure upgrades to power companies. This will be translated to electricity cost increases. And thus the BPL costs will be hidden from public view till it hits all consumers.
I propose the following message to political columnists and politicians.
-------
Is the BPL infrastructure costs going to be passed on to the consumer in higher electric rates due to any guaranteed profits allowed to the power company?
The Infrastructure upgrade costs will be very large to implement BPL. The Upgrades were so large for TELCOs that it almost bankrupted every major TELCO supplier.
Thus if the power company is guaranteed a profit by burying the costs in 'infrastructure' upgrades, then uses that to compete with the TELCO's. Will the power companies not absorb the losses into infrastructures and cause the Electric consumer to pay for the competition.
Is this a reality?
Thanks
----
Please note there are no references to Radio. This may be a way of allowing the issue to take on another meaning with out the stigmatism of Hams being the 'others'.
Thanks for viewing the comments.
Richard
K5SF
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by K3UD on May 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is an interesting point. About a year ago our local power company wanted to start a competing cable service to go up against Charter Cable.
The power company had in the previous 4 years spent a bundle to run fiber optic cable all over town. It was thought that this would bring to the consumer the options of choice as to where they purchased their power and at what time periods. There could also be smart meters and automatic control of power hungry household appliances such as you air conditioner, hot water heater, dryer etc.
It was also thought that a large number of businesses would lease T1 and incremental lines from them and eventually they would offer high speed internet to their customers.
For a variety of reasons this did not happen as the market for high speed internet in our area is rather thin due to the economics of the region. Also, after the California power debacle, the state put consumer power choice on the slow track.
Residents in our town had been constantly complaining about the rising cost of Cable and the rumor that Charter (which had also spent a ton of money upgrading its infastructure for digital service) was going to force everyone into some kind of expensive digital package.
The Local powwer company then decided that they would compete on price with Charter. Studies were done that showed while residents wanted a choice, they really wanted the choice to be substantially lower than what they were paying presently. The power company published prospective rates which were about $5 - $8 a month cheaper than Charter.
Then it got interesting....
The power company wanted the city to in effect insure the debt it was going to have to take on in order to provide cheaper service and set up the remaining infastructure. It was a hedge against failing and would have transferred the liability to the taxpayers. City Council balked and nothing was done.
The popular view was that there was not going to be enough business for both cable systems and that Charter had the resources to in effect outlast the power company effort, forcing it to eventually fail.
In the interim there was a rate increase put in effect by the power company which was widely attributed to the fact that the broadband and cable ideas did not work, and they had to make up what was spent on the fiber infastructure.
Yes... your speculation is very real.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by K0BG on May 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting approach. Our power provider is Xcel and their story is a pay as you go with no "hit" on their consumers. We'll soon see I'm sure.
Alan, KØBG
|
| |
|
BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by N0MLR on May 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am surprised this comment has not come up long ago. Why should it suprise anyone that their electric will go up to support this Boon Doggle! When this thing does not pan out the electric Consumer will pay the Bill. Other wise the ones in charge would have to admit defeat and their jobs would be on the line, we all know thats not going to happen.
We will pay twice for this, once in loosing the viability of the HF spectrun and again when it fails. Watch and See!
Greg Dunn / N0MLR
|
| |
|
BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by NC2W on May 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would agree with Greg. In NY, (which has the ninth largest budget in the World) the cost of rolling out BPL will probably fall to the taxpayer.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by NN6EE on May 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well then isn't it about time that the Consumers starting wising up, raising their "hackles" and spitting VENOM at these ripoff ideas???
Capitalism is great if it's applied evenly to all but it never is!!!
Federal and State regulations are the only way to bring this crap under control!!! Free enterprise if not closely watch will SCREW all of us time and again, look at today's "Corporate Amerika" control of our so-called elected officials!!!
It was Reagan and the Bushes that wanted LESS government but looked what happened there, "Homeland Security" is the BIGGEST boondoogle created by any government anywhere else on Earth!!!
Jim/ee
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by K1CJS on May 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This comment did come out a while ago on another thread. However, it went largely ignored--possibly because the subject of the thread wasn't passing on the costs of BPL to the consumer through higher power bills.
It would indeed be a way to get through to the politicians, if most weren't in the pocket of the power companies to begin with.
I'm just thankful that BPL isn't being considered in my area as of yet, but I'm not waiting for it to be--I've written letters to the congresscritters and the power companies now, before the subject even comes up.
And as far as the prez goes, if he has so much respect for ham radio operators, why won't he listen to us?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by K4LY on May 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let me suggest that we all let the Kerry campaign as well as the Bush campaign (in case there's a chance that they come to their senses) where we amateurs stand on BPL and why.
Doug W0AH
|
| |
|
BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by AC7KZ on May 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Government is not for and by the people anymore. It's for $$$$ Regardless of party.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by KD5DFM on May 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
give the prez a break , he's retarded after all ;-) vote for someone who earned the medals he threw away
>And as far as the prez goes, if he has so much >respect for ham radio operators, why won't he listen >to us?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by AB5XZ on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Send a QSL card to President Bush, Senator Kerry, and Mr. Nader. See which (if any) replies.
I sent a card to the President, but haven't heard back (didn't check PSE QSL).
|
| |
|
BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by KF6JZC on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Again I find that all of these post are interesting reading. However, I must make one comment.
It is Congress that you should be contacting about this, not the president. The President is basically responsible for things associated with the defense of this country and foreign policy. Other than that, all he does is approve or disapproves legislation sent from Congress. I know this is an over simplification but basically that is all.
So whether you blame Bush for this or think that Kerry won't do any better, tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb don't really have that much say in the matter other than approving it.
Follow the money, and it leads to Congress.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Another Approach / Write the President?
|
|
|
by KN4AQ on May 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>It is Congress that you should be contacting
>about this, not the president.
The President injected himself into the issue by directly promoting BPL by name. The ARRL encouraged hams to write to the White House, and enough hams did that ARRL President Jim Haynie W5JBP was invited to present our case to the White House staff this week. Both Congress and the President can put pressure on the FCC to be more objective.
Progress Energy, in the Carolinas and Florida, is a regulated, public utility. Their "party line" is that they can not and will not use "regulated funds" for BPL. The risk belogns to the stockholders, not the ratepayers. I couldn't tell you how separate or interconnected the money is in reality.
At Dayton, the bottom line at several forums is that the BPL fight is now almost entirely political, and no longer technical, although Progress Energy is still fighting on the technical front, claiming that the signals they emit in the ham bands are not "harmful". For the utilities themselves, it is also economic - they won't do it if they think they can't make money (eventually).
I hope every ham who has taken the time to write - or to just vent - on the forums and mailing lists has also taken the time to write to their legislators and utility commission.
I also suggest writing to your utility with a simple message:
- you are an Amateur Radio Operator.
- you live in their service area.
- if they implement BPL in your neighborhood, all the observation done so far shows that there will be harmful interference in the shortwave spectrum.
- you will file a complaint, and they will have to spend time and money correcting the problem.
I think if they get this note from every neighborhood they serve, that will add a bit to the negative side of their ledger.
73,
Gary KN4AQ
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by AB5XZ on May 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>It is Congress that you should be contacting about >this, not the president. The President is basically >responsible for things associated with the defense of >this country and foreign policy. Other than that, all >he does is approve or disapproves legislation sent >from Congress. I know this is an over simplification >but basically that is all.
You're right, as far as you go. But the FCC's Commissioners serve at the pleasure of the President. Congress is not even debating BPL at this time.
If I contact my Congressman, it will be to ask him to look into the FCC's BPL adventure. If enough of us write to enough congressmen, it might get their attention.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by K1WCC on May 22, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There will be many hidden costs with BPL-this is one of them. Another cost might be your need to defend yourself if sued by the power company for interfering with their BPL signals when you transmit. It has been made clear in the FCC NPRM comments that any HF transmitters will do this if close enough to the BPL transmission line. You may be operating completely legally and would eventually be exonerated, but at what cost to you?
I think it's imperative for a local club to be proactive. If BPL is coming to town, craft a non-threatening but informative letter informing consumers of the possible risks to their broadband service should they subscribe to BPL. Put it in your local newspaper as an advertisement, and assign a credible member of your club as a contact person in the event people have questions. Stay away from hysteria and stick to the facts. We CAN fight back.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by N5MZL on May 22, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have to admit that reading some of the hysterics here about the government in general and BPL in particular as it applies (or doesn't, as the case may be; the amount of ignorance displayed in some of these posts is shocking...until you consider how dumbed down the US populace has become) to the matter of BPL infrastructure costs.
The reality is that whether or not an electric utility can pass on it's BPL infrastructure costs to the consumer depends on what state you live in. More precisely, what your state's Public Utility Commission (or whatever it's called in your state) has the power to do.
For instance, in Texas electric utilities are strongly regulated, relatively speaking. And one thing established a long time ago was that if an electric utility decided to branch out into other business areas, and subsequently lost their shirt, they had to eat the cost themselves.
As an example, the company now known as Reliant Energy once decided to get into the cable TV business, and bought a cable company in the San Antonio area. The people running the company at that time were nothing if not incompetent, and the decision to get into the cable business was an unmitigated disaster. That cable company was a financial black hole, sucking up fabulous sums of money. Finally, after a few years of this, they sold it off to Time Warner for pennies on the dollar.
This was not the only time that company had tried it's hand in getting into other areas besides electric power generation, transmission and distribution, and each time they lost their shirt. And each time they had to eat the cost because the PUC rules clearly stated that, unlike the electric utility business, where they were guaranteed a certain profit (being a "regulated monopoly"), with any other business they got into, it was sink or swim, and their electric customer would not have to bail them out. (The fact that their core business was a "cash cow", with it's guaranteed profit, is the only thing that kept them from going under.)
So, the fact is (again, depending on what state you are in and how your state and/or local government regulates such things) the electric utility can't pass on it's BPL infrastructure costs on to the consumer.
Throwing rhetorical rocks at George W. Bush (or Nixon, Reagan, Gingrich, or whatever other Republican happens to be on the DNC Enemies List on a given day) will avail you nothing in this case. There is an old saying, "The President proposes, Congress disposes". If you bother to actually read the Constitution, you will see that the powers of the Executive are narrowly defined, and the lion's share resides with the Congress.
If you want to raise hell about BPL, call or write your congressman first, and rag on the Prez as an afterthought. You will get more bangs for your buck that way.
73 de N5MZL
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by N0QAZ on May 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great stuff --- This post and others in this thread--
and very refreshing -- Living in The "0" land as I do -- Where Vocal and unfettered Ultra-Conservatism seems to rule the day along with the Assumption that sacred George can do no wrong -- I was beginning to feel that Hams - regardless of other redeeming abilities -- were the most Politically brain dead group I had ever encountered (My Observation time being 12 or so years ) to the point where Darn near wconsidered leaving the air and letting the liscence lapse out of sheer frustration ( for the second or third time.) Thank goodness at least I know Im not the only one who actually sees these trends and cares.
|
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by KF7CG on May 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If anyone has scanned the Manassas Request for Bids on a BPL for their town, you will see a costly on failure and potentially devastating clause. Manassas wants whomever becomes the BPL frnachisee for the town to supply BPL for traffic signal, electric power switching, and other city infrastructure uses.
What is the cost when control units have to be replaced because BPL fails?
What is the cost when ingress interference fouls the electric power switching controls?
What is the cost monetarily, and possibly in human life, when ingress interference fouls the traffic control signal resulting in an accident?
Does the use of BPL for vital public safety functions somehow elevate the stature of a Part 15 product into an essential service and negate all the Part 15 restrictions on BPL interference?
Should their be an explicit Federal ban on the use of any Part 15 service for direct safety of life public safety applications, such as traffic signal control?
Do you want to live in, or even drive through at town where the traffic signals are controlled by BPL?
If there are interference problems to power switching and traffic signals will Amateurs get the blame even if their is no direct proof? What will be the upshoot of this blame? Will the public safety angle give the city the power to regulate RF emissions within its borders plus a buffer zone?
The costs of BPL as witnessed by the Manassas bid proposal seem to escalate with each new phase.
|
| |
|
BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by KI6YN on May 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Enough of the ranting and raving; it has never gotten the working stiff anything in the past, Republican nor Democrat. Let's face it, it is big money that motivates the politicians in power, notice, I didn't say "our politicians", that expression is only for use by CEOs and other deep pocket persons. There is a solution to the BPL problem and unfortunately, it involves cost and work by amateur radio operators. I'm going to 'clean up' the problem of BPL if it ever reaches my neighborhood by going from QRP to full power i.e. I just purchased a linear and will use it if the need arises. The bit error rate on the BPL system within close proximity to my antenna will go way up and really slow down the system. In time, the users will get tired of the wait and go back to cable modems and/or DSL. I don't intend to go keydown, that would be willful disobedience and breaking the rules. I will be operating CW as usual except that the power will be a lot more than what it could be if there were no BPL. So, the linear will just be gathering dust until the problem calls for a solution, and the amplifier will be the solution to the problem.
It has been suggested that some people inject a carrier right into the power lines, that is no big deal to figure out from an engineering standpoint, but if caught, it is going to cost you big time for a lawyer and the fines and/or jail time. With high power, you can operate legally and if you have a clean station with proper antenna and filter, there is nothing that the FCC can do to stop you if you are complying with all the rules and regualtions. We are probably going to have to comply with their own rules to beat them back. There is enough bandwidth available with DSL and cable modems, so why is there a need or want for BPL?
Just wanted to caution all of you that there are laws but the laws can be a two edged sword.
|
| |
|
BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't think BPL will cost power company customers anything. Here's why:
In all of the cases I've read about, it is *not* the power utility that is running the BPL operation. What really happens is that a 'communications' company does the BPL thing and leases the use of the wires from the power utilities for a fixed fee. So the power company gets their $$ whether or not anyone signs up for BPL.
Of course at least some of the BPL hardware has to be installed by the power company or its qualified contractors, but that's all reimbursed.
This is why the power folks are all for it - they get another revenue stream without taking the risk and complexity of running the BPL operation.
The only way I can see power utilities losing money on the deal is if a BPL operation goes completely bankrupt and shuts down the operation, leaving the power company holding the bag for unpaid charges (just like someone who doesn't pay their bill and then skips town or dies) *and* a bunch of hardware hanging on their poles which they have to eventually remove.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Another Approach / Write the President?
|
|
|
by K1CJS on May 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted earlier in the thread:
"Progress Energy, in the Carolinas and Florida, is a regulated, public utility. Their "party line" is that they can not and will not use "regulated funds" for BPL. The risk belogns to the stockholders, not the ratepayers. I couldn't tell you how separate or interconnected the money is in reality."
OK, sure. If you really believe that, I've got a bridge I want you to look at........
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by K1CJS on May 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Again, from an earlier post:
"So, the fact is (again, depending on what state you are in and how your state and/or local government regulates such things) the electric utility can't pass on it's BPL infrastructure costs on to the consumer."
In theory, this is altogether right. In practice, its A BIG JOKE. How about infrastructure upgrades that would be done for cable but could be used by the generating systems for intersystem control. Thats just one of the many 'loopholes' that can and WILL be used by power companies to pass their losses on.
Oh, and how about juggling books and making 'mistakes' on purpose.....with a 'discovery' of the mistake years on down the road when the fiasco is long been forgotten about. What? That can't happen? If you think that, I've got one word for you: ENRON.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Another Approach
|
|
|
by K5SF on May 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wanted to thank all who replied,
The discussion further advances our understanding of a solution.
It is my beleif that some of the guaranteed profit states will wind up with higher electric costs as a result of infrastructure costs from implementing BPL,
Fortunately, Texas PUC is tightly regulated and must justify all increases. So that is not a great risk here.
We need to be observant, and see what exists in our areas and insure there is support to prevent all electric users from paying for something they may not desire.
73's to all
Rich
K5SF
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
What is FCC Docket 03-104 Asking?
HPL is Coming to an Outlet Near You!
New Restrictions on BPL in Australia:
Texas BPL Initiative Dead; Antenna Bill Exempts Amateur Radio:
BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Authority, Court Filing Says:
Other Regulatory Articles
Bandwidth versus Keying Speed
Fact or Fallacy?
HFA Spotlights ARRL Board Meeting
Kiss 33cm (900 MHz) Goodbye?
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress
|
