Google Invests in Power-Line Broadband

fsterman writes "ZDNet reports that Current Communications Group has received investment money from Google, Hearst, and Goldman Sachs for their internet over broadband ventures. The Wall Street Journal reports that the three companies invested roughly $100 million in the start-up. Current Communications and Cinergy Broadband said they will create one joint venture to bundle broadband and voice services for Cinergy's 1.5 million customers. Current also has plans to use the new investment money to expand its broadband over power line deployments in the U.S. and overseas."

Comments

Why?

[Rei]

I thought that internet-over-power lines was pretty much a dead concept - not simply due to the fact that you had to largely redo your power infrastructure anyways so that it doesn't filter out your data, but because by the very nature of modulating a signal on a high power wire, you're building the world's largest radio transmitter network, and flooding everything with radio interference.

Re:Why?

[Rei]

The whole point of broadband over power lines is to make use of existing infrastructure. If you're going to make all new infrastructure, you might as well make it something designed to carry large amounts of data, like fiber bundles.

Re:Why?

[Geshiggity]

I wouldn't worry so much about it knocking out other forms of communications as much as I would worry about other communications knocking _it_ out. Power lines are extremely susceptible to electromagnetic interference (EMI). Also, thermal noise may be an issue at transformers. There will just need to be some good signal processing to make this work.

The airwaves are already ridiculously cluttered, which is why the FCC licenses frequency bands and regulates the power allowed to be transmitted on those frequencies. I don't see the radiated power being an issue.

Re:Why?

[scoove]

All you hams should get a computer and learn to use email instead of tieing up valuable spectrum with your silly talking.

Normally it isn't prudent to respond to humor masqueraded as flamebait, but I thought I'd add some perspective for those who might be curious about the reality of such criticisms. Here are a few thoughts:

Many of the carrier network CCIEs I work with are "hams" - licensed amateur radio operators. I'm only a lowly CCIP in process (actually with a CISSP and CISA, with a management/finance background, worked with Linux since Linus had it on two floppies (ala "pre distribution"), build a mean kernel and program in Python). I'm a general license ham and work with microwave communications over MPLS networks daily.

There is considerable innovation done in modulation schemes, such as PSK, which increasingly gets integrated in the commercial wireless broadband world. I've constructed IPv6 over mesh protocol networks in amateur frequencies, and the best thing about the extensive range of amateur bands is that there's certain to be one for your open source project. One of my projects that needs more attention is my Python software repeater that controls a Piexx.com Motorola VHF-L, VHF-H or UHF radio from Linux.

Amateur radio is very much open source radio, where broadband over powerline is closed source. If you're interested in open source and radiofrequency, amateur radio is where you go to get the open tools to experiment. Care to understand what really is happening in your 802.11? The theory is all contained in amateur radio. You'd be shocked how much you learn when you compile in AX.25 into your kernel, build the tools, and construct a whopping 56 kbps network on UHF (or even better, 1200 on some old Kantronics TNCs). You can keep up with Ethereal on a saturated network at those speeds, and suddenly basic IP and lower layer fundamentals click. Some of the best wireless security people I've met are hams. Just as a real kernel hacker is a better OS security person, a knowledgable ham is going to beat a "user" of 802.11 any day (anyone who claims to be a wireless security expert that simply knows how to click on an icon in NetStumbler is a joke).

The BPL initiatives are unfortunately highly destructive to a very wide band of RF - not just HF. Low VHF frequencies are seriously degraded as well. BPL is a property grab no different than abusive software patents. It is theft of a third of the public radiofrequency commons for no reason other than corporate profit.

The best analogy I can give a non-radio person on BPL is to imagine if Microsoft Longhorn would cause a 60% to 70% consumption in IP networks by having uncontrolled, sustained blasts of ICMP, TCP and UDP traffic. Microsoft's explanation that this just "had to happen because there is a demand for Longhorn" wouldn't pass with the rest of us who know there are better solutions. Forcing it if it doesn't fix is never a good approach.

BPL suffers problems due to RF theory, not implementation. Just as I had to work around 1-2 second latencies in international satellite voice network engineering (no "negative latency inducer" could bail me out), transmission and distribution power systems are designed to radiate energy based on the RF injected (hence the 60 Hz hum one often hears). They are big antennas, but fortunately most electronics has worked around the awareness that 60 Hz is noisy and blankets the environment. Now induce HF to VHF and you've destroyed RF (and we're not factoring for harmonics and other higher band interference which is certain to occur).

Incidentally, regarding this amusing comment:

If you really want to you can still use morse code over IP. . Screw the radio, screw broadcast TV, screw emergency services. They should all be using broadband.

Someone needs to learn the OSI model. He might be surprised to learn that his IP is riding over VHF, HF, or another frequency blasted by BPL. Our weather network in western Iowa uses mobile IP (IPv4oAX25) on lower VHF frequencies to monitor storms for the National Weather Service. Given BPL interference, you might be well served telling people they just have to die for their BPL since emergency service and amateur spectrum isn't important.

Re:Why?

[moultano]

Naturally, I was just saying that your "I can't see it happening" assertion was a little after the fact.

Its about time....

[eldawg]

Even though the technology may still need some polishing, it is already being pursued in Europe.

Broadband over Power Lines

[alue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_line_communicat ion

It gets even better...

[OmniGeek]

BPL *also* interferes with public emergency service radios. So when there's an emergency, ALL the emergency responders can potentially be interfered with. What a great idea, eh?

Re:Not Evil?

[merreborn]

Satelite comes with terrible round trip times, though. I hope you like pings of in the 1000ms range ;)

(The trip out to orbit is around 400ms, and it's a good 400ms back)

Why BPL is bad for radio transmissions

[lugar]

For those who are looking for data on BPL and its effects on radio transmissions, this is a good place to start:

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/aud-vid.html

Re:Not Evil?

[keraneuology]

Amateur radio is used daily in many public service capacities:

Many, if not most SKYWARN groups use amateur radio to coordinate severe weather verification with the national weather service.

Here in Michigan amateur radios operators are used to verify that the tornado sirens work.

All hospitals are being equipped with shortwave radios for use during states of general emergency. During the big blackout the cell phone networks were a) overloaded then b) dead as the reserve power units ran out of juice.

Amateur operators routinely provide assistance during major events such as bike-a-thons, or the Woodward Dream Cruise

Amateur operators routinely carry traffic to/from disaster-struck areas worldwide. As I type this emergency nets are ready to get information into and out of hurricane stricken areas.

Amateur radio is the original version of the chat room and continues to serve this purpose

Many of the advancements in satellite communication were helped by experimenting amateurs - the original homebrew movement.

Amateur radio continues to serve a valuable purpose and definitely has a place in this world. For those seeking a technical challenge beyond executing a kiddie's scripts I suggest you attempt to pass your license exam and try to make even a single connection via packet or microwave.

Re:Alternative to BPL in rural areas

[amrust]

Basically, the guy plans on running a big WiFi transmitter on the unlicensed 2.4 GHz spectrum. How he can run a transmitter at that kind of power (7 mile range) and avoid the FCC is beyond me, but more power to him if he can (no pun intended)

When you run in the unlicensed spectrum, you agree not to provide any interference on licenced frequencies.

Re:Wireless

[KD5YPT]

Tesla is full of shit eh?

Where do you think we got our AC generators from? Tesla.
Sure he has his problem, but don't say he's shit just because his idea doesn't work too well.

As for the inverse square law, he's fully aware of that. He's development revolves around attemp to get around the inverse square law (using the ionosphere as a conductor, use ionosphere as a container, uses earth itself, etc).

It works both ways

[Bruce Perens]

Unfortunately, BPL has already proven to be a very obnoxious radiator of energy into in-use communication bands. The problem is that when you put energy into a wire, that wire is always also an antenna radiating that energy. Power lines make excellent transmitting antennas, and a single installation can take out many forms of communications for at least a mile arond the wire, and because of ionospheric "skip", the interference from a single installation can have a global impact.

Sure, signals can get into the wire when a strong station is close by, but they always get out.

Bruce

Re:BPL...not good

[leighklotz]

Another AC writes (why won't any of these people say who they are?)
>Manassas, VA adopted BPL last year and has shown demonstrations of folks
>using HAM all throughout the city. No interference whatsoever.
>AFAIK, of all of the commercial deployments, none have been shown to
>negatively interfere with amateur radio. The claims of interference
>seem like little more than FUD to me. Everybody wants something
>to complain about.

Well, you're quite documentedly wrong. I did Google manassas, va bpl and got a top hit that led me to a MS Word document of FCC complaint filings, together with links to the complaints filed on the official FCC web site. See Google's cache for a HTML version of the word document.

Another contains WMV video of a radio experiencing interference in Manassas, VA. and watch "706 listening to BPL on 40 meters, while another transmits".